Category Archives: stuff

Secession

engineer working on hardware
Image by This_is_Engineering from Pixabay

Could a university department secede from their university and become independent? This was the idea behind a vision piece I wrote last year. I recently published a couple of vision pieces on the blog, one on the The University Group™ and another on The Specialist University Centre. This vision about secession is similar to the specialist centre, but goes further.

Created by experts to inspire (and possibly scare) us into thinking about what a preferable future for higher education might look like.

Though the concept of economies of scale means that the concept of a large university, spreading costs and overheads across a range of provision was seen by many as a cost effective solution, the growing impact of reduced funding, fixed student fees; saw university departments being forced to cut costs. There was a spread of discontent that this was having a negative impact on the student experience and the quality of the research being undertaken. There was also a strong feeling across staff and management of many departments of these decisions being done to them and they having no say in the decision making process.

University departments already had some element of autonomy, so it wasn’t too long before some departments decided to secede from the university and form their own “university” to take back control. These departments wanted to have more power over the recruitment of students and staff. They were able to outsource administrative and professional services to subsidiary service companies that delivered services to a large number of these autonomous departments. With the wealth of empty office space across major cities, it was relatively easy to procure space, combined with online provision, and hybrid home working, the costs of running a department of a university, divorced from the university itself, could be minimised. The use of shared services across these small independent universities enabled them to focus on research, learning and teaching. With no large overheads being top sliced from the income, they could invest more in learning and teaching. Some departments even decided that teaching was a distraction and focused on research alone.

Learning and teaching was often a blend of physical in-person provision combined with online delivery and resources. The use of online and digital resources meant that library provision was entirely online. Even then the use of print on demand, meant those students who wanted physical books and journals could have them delivered overnight.

For many prospective students, these new independent departmental universities were a real attraction, allowing them to fit their studies easily into their work life balance. Going to university wasn’t always an option for all prospective students, the focused and specialised provision of these providers was meeting a real demand.

Once a few high profile departments had done this, it wasn’t long before there was an avalanche of universities finding themselves breaking up. In some cases legislation was enabled that allowed those departments to retain not just their staff, but also their departmental buildings and campuses. Legislation was passed enabling these departments became small independent universities. They started to market themselves, mainly using online tools and services.

The ease at which cloud services could be obtained and the increase in the availability of independent professional services, and service companies, resulted in keeping administration costs to a minimum.

The break-up of the large universities into smaller departmental universities, also detached many university functions and services. There was no longer a need to centralise student accommodation, often halls of residences would be either sold off as they were no longer needed, or effectively privatised. University catering was closed off, and national chains took over the spaces.

Student support became a service that was bought in as and when required.

Some university campuses which consisted only of independent subject departments, the university administration became more of caretaker and administrator for these departments, akin to the science parks of their day.

The Specialist University Centre

lab
Image by Michal Jarmoluk from Pixabay

I had planned to publish this, as the first of my vision pieces, following the UUK Annual Conference last week, but my timetable was scuppered with the announcement of the “first” university super merger between the University of Greenwich and the University of Kent. So I did publish a vision piece on The University Group™.

So, what was going to be that first vision? Well last week was the UUK Annual Conference and I was able to attend as I had worked on strand 2 of the UUK Transformation & Efficiency Taskforce. On the second day, the then science secretary Peter Kyle was speaking and calling for increasing specialisation and collaboration in higher education.

There are “too many universities competing for the same pool of students”, according to science secretary Peter Kyle. Speaking to reporters at Universities UK conference, Kyle argued that said volume of universities was coming at the “expense of playing to their relative strengths or truly specialising to become the go-to authority in their field rather than a bit player in many.” 

I was reminded of this piece of work I wrote last February, which never got further than my hard drive (well cloud storage) on the specialist university.

Created by experts to inspire (and possibly scare) us into thinking about what a preferable future for higher education might look like.

What might it mean for the operations of a university if the focus of the student experience became more specialised? How would and how could the sector respond to change in how students accessed higher education. What would this mean for individual institutions?

Though there have been many specialist higher education institutions, they have generally being outnumbered by the more traditional general university offering a portfolio of courses across multiple subjects. 

Universities currently offer a broad range of programs and modules for graduates and postgraduates what we could see happening in future as university specialising in one or two particular areas, and then having all the students in the area attend that specific university, so you no longer would have the university of a particular city; you would have the university of business university of law, the university of biology, the university of aeronautical engineering.

The cost of providing some subjects became prohibitive and many universities recognising that economies of scale would be more cost-effective took the decision to specialise in a few core areas. They decided to specialise and provide high-quality, specialised education locations in their chosen, subject field and research. However though they narrowed down their breadth of delivery, they were able to use technology to widen their offer to the whole of the UK and in some cases internationally as well. 

As the reputation of these institutions grew, those universities who had decided to retain a broad curriculum, found that both domestic and international student recruitment was falling, and it was becoming more difficult to recruit and retain staff.

The specialist institutions soon outnumbered the traditional university by student numbers. These institutions were large enough to provide their own student services, professional services and even multiple campus hubs across the UK.

In addition to these large specialist institutions, there was also a large number of small institutions focusing on very specialist curriculum and research areas. However they did not have the capacity or capability to deliver the student and professional services they required. As a result they bought in these services from service companies, or in some cases they collaborated with other specialist institutions to deliver shared services in a range of areas. This enabled the specialist institutions to focus on teaching and research. They used third parties for professional services such as IT, HR, payroll, student records and others. 

There was also collaboration in other areas, especially in student facing services such as the library, student support, healthcare, and academic support.

Some specialist institutions also partnered with relevant industry partners, with the industry partner providing the business support for the university.

The University Group™

laptop with coffee
Image by Firmbee from Pixabay

With the recent announcement of the “first” university super merger between the University of Greenwich and the University of Kent, I was reminded of this piece of work I wrote last February, which never got further than my hard drive (well cloud storage). I did write about writing them in a weeknote back then.

Anyhow, here is the vision I wrote about a future University Group, something that KPMG wrote about in their Radical Collaboration document for the UUK Transformation & Efficiency Taskforce and can be seen in the Greenwich and Kent merger.

Created by experts to inspire (and possibly scare) us into thinking about what a preferable future for higher education might look like.

All universities have their own personality, appeal, and brand. However not all universities need their own HR departments, or IT teams.

The first large university groups appeared following mergers forced by the regulator after financial pressures could have caused at least one higher education institution to fail.

The new group recognised that though in theory they should have a new name, they also realised that the existing names were brands in their own right. As a result they formed The University Group™ but the individual university names were kept. Staff were employed by The University Group™ but students attended a named university. It was so successful that some smaller institutions asked to join the group but retain their identity. What was important to the group was that management and staff recognised that they were employed by The University Group™ and not the named university in which they worked (though some teaching staff worked across the group), from a student experience perspective the student was a student of the named university. They would be awarded their degree from that named university and would to all intents and purposes be a graduate of that named university.

Support for the administrative and support functions was provided by group services. There was a single HR department for example, a single catering supplier for the group, IT services was provided by the group. Some group staff were based at each university campus to provide on-site support, but many professional services staff worked in a hybrid manner based in. regional hubs. This again reduced costs, through economics of scale, reduced office space. For those universities based in high cost city centres, reducing the amount of space for professional services, either increased teaching space capacity or reducing the university estate to further save costs.

The success of that first group in reducing costs and increasing student numbers encouraged others to not only reflect on joining the group, but for the regular to force through mergers across the country. We then started to see the first metropolitan universities appear, as well as the first regional groups.

Some universities decided to jump before they were pushed and so when a group of geographically dispersed universities merged to form a new super university group but retaining their individual identities the tide turned for the unique independent single university.

It wasn’t too long before the number of higher education organisations could be counted on the fingers of two hands, though the number of named universities actually increased, as the university groups de-regionalised some of their brands into local brands.

The university groups had better bargaining power and more influence in some markets. This also helped reduce costs across various services. With just a few higher education organisations the market for some specialised learning technologies was too small and many edtech businesses either dissolved or moved into other markets.

So does your institution still have a silo mentality?

grain silos
Image by Dimitris Vetsikas from Pixabay

I have been thinking about the challenges of higher education institutions having a silo mentality and the potential impact of this on collaboration and sharing.

Just over a year ago I wrote a blog post about institutional silos inspired by this post on WonkHE about higher education silos, Institutional silos are making it harder to build learning environments for student success.

Ask any higher education institution leader about the organisational challenges they’re grappling with, and they’ll start talking about silos.

As one respondent said in our research in the Collaboration for a sustainable future report said “my institution doesn’t even collaborate with itself.” Part of that has to be having a silo mentality.

What this means is that across an organisation, different departments work to their own specific strategy and needs. Sometimes silos are referred to as “cylinders of excellence”. You can have outstanding and excellent departments, but though often we think of the phrase first coined by the philosopher Aristotle, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. With cylinders of excellence, the whole can be a lot less than the sum of the parts.

From personal experience, having high performing teams, means that they are achieving their objectives, but unless those objectives are aligned or contribute to the organisational whole then, the overall impact on the organisation might be negligible or even negative.

Collaboration internally means alignment, it means common goals, thinking of the whole rather than the one. Internal strategies and objectives need to be connected to other internal strategies and objectives to ensure alignment and maximum impact. 

Part of this is breaking down silos. Though as anyone knows breaking down silos is hard. We often think of grain silos, metal cylinders that are close together, they should be easy to break, shouldn’t they? I always now think of higher education silos as missile silos, embedded into reinforced concrete and dispersed across a wide area.

A couple of years ago I wrote this;

I wonder if silo working is another word for non-strategic working? People often complain about silo working and the resulting challenges that can arise. I think part of the reason why there are problems with duplication, conflict, and lack of communication, across silo working, is teams are working to their own objectives and aren’t necessarily working towards common objectives.

Breaking down silo working, isn’t just about saying, we need to break down the silos but is so much more about thinking strategically about what your organisation is trying to achieve. Recognising that even if your department is successful in achieving your strategic goals, doesn’t mean that the university is being successful.

In the current economic climate the sector is facing real challenges. Strategically you may want to have an outstanding student experience, world class research, and a global impact, but the reality is you might need to keep the lights on first. If you take the “usual” strategic objectives that most universities have, as stated, an outstanding student experience, world class research, and a global impact, as a given. Then the strategic objectives of the organisation can be focused on survival, resilience, and change. Part of that change has to be breaking down the internal silo mentality. Of course, easier said than done.

e-Learning Stuff: Top Ten Blog Posts 2024

laptop with coffee
Image by Firmbee from Pixabay

Having posted that I was unable to post a top ten from 2024 looking at the dashboard I realised I could see the stats for the blog posts from 2024.

In 2024 I posted 70 posts on the blog. In 2023 I wrote 89 posts on the blog. There were 92 posts in 2022, 113 blog posts in 2021. In 2020 I had written 94 blog posts. In 2019 I had written 52 blog posts which was up from 2018 when I only wrote 17 blog posts.

Microphone
Image by rafabendo from Pixabay

The tenth most popular post was Lost in translation: the radio programme. This was a blog post from a series of posts I did during the covid pandemic, but still has relevance today.

The post at number nine was The idea of capturing a lecture… was a thought piece from April 2024. It discussed that capturing a lecture isn’t a new idea, however capturing a lecture may not be the optimum way of delivering a recorded version of the in-person session.

A really old post from 2008 was the eighth most popular post. Full Resolution Video on the PSP. Do people still use the PSP?

PSP
Image by WikimediaImages from Pixabay

Seventh place was Ten ways to use QR Codes which was not a post about ten ways to use QR codes. At the time QR codes appeared to be more of a fad with people using QR codes because they were QR codes. Since then the proper use cases for QR codes has grown, most people find them useful now for doing other things, they are a means to and end.

The post at number six was from 2015, I can do that… What does “embrace technology” mean? was from the FE Area Reviews.

The post at number five was a week note from 2019, Student Journey – Weeknote #08 – 26th April 2019.

walking home
Image by 춘성 강 from Pixabay

The fourth most popular post was written in February 2024 and asked the question: What makes an intelligent campus?

At number three was a post on freakish occurrences, “million-to-one chances happen nine times out of ten”. One of my favourite quotes from Terry Pratchett is that “million-to-one chances happen nine times out of ten”. When something awful happens, or freakish, we hear news reporters say “it was a million-to-one chance that this would happen”.

snowy road

The second most popular post was from 2009 and asked To Retweet or not to Retweet which was a post about retweeting on the Twitter.

The most popular post in 2024 is one of the all time popular posts, The iPad Pedagogy Wheel. Published in 2013, this was number one for many years.. I re-posted the iPad Pedagogy Wheel as I was getting asked a fair bit, “how can I use this nice shiny iPad that you have given me to support teaching and learning?”. It’s a really simple nice graphic that explores the different apps available and where they fit within Bloom’s Taxonomy. What I like about it is that you can start where you like, if you have an iPad app you like you can see how it fits into the pedagogy. Or you can work out which iPads apps fit into a pedagogical problem.

Is it a Snow Day?

Lots of snow this week, however, I didn’t see much mention of university closures compared to say fifteen years ago when we had some really bad snow.

Back in February 2009 we had the worst snow for twenty years. Many universities  and colleges closed, most publishing notices about the closure to their websites.

At the time myself and few others recorded a podcast about the role that learning technologies and communication tools can have in supporting colleges and schools that get closed because of the snow.

I remember discussing the issue with colleagues at the time once the snow had melted that we as a college did not make much more use of our VLE and other online platforms during the time we were closed. The result of the discussion was that closing for three days every twenty years was not something we really needed to spend resources and time planning for. There is a point, when there is an “out of the ordinary” event, contingency planning probably isn’t required in any great depth. Much easier just to deal with the problems resulting from the closure than try and plan just in case (which at the time) for a remote chance of closing.

However then in January 2010… the snow came back, this time the worse snow for forty years! Once more lots of universities, colleges, and schools closed. I discussed this at the time in my blog post on snow. My main point was:

Yes, snow makes it dangerous to travel, but with the internet and mobile technologies, does it mean that learners need to stop learning just because the decision is taken to close the physical location? So what if this snow is unprecedented? What if we are now not going to have bad snow for another twenty years?

My next point in the post was this.

Closures happen a lot, time to start thinking about how an educational institution can make best use of the fantastic tools that are available to it for learning. Though the first thing to do will be to change the culture. It’s not just about contingency planning; it’s about changing the way people work when there isn’t snow and changing the way people think when there is.

It was never about the snow; it was about the disruption.

In 2010 I spoke at the Plymouth e-learning conference, I chaired a debate about closing the physical campus in times of crisis and disruption. I wrote about this at the time in this blog post.

Even if it doesn’t snow really badly next year, other things may happen that result in the physical closure of the educational institution. It could be floods, high winds (remember 1987), flu or similar viral infections, transport strikes, fuel crisis, anything…

Of course in 2020 we had the global covid pandemic, and disruption was taken to an unprecedented level, which meant as a sector, we had to respond quickly and effectively. There was a massive emergency response and the sector moved everthing online and people stayed at home.

So this week we’ve had some snow, but I suspect the disruption is still there, but the response from the sector will be influenced by that covid experience, to the point where the disruption can be minimised.

Is today a snow day? No it’s just a day when it snowed.

Review of 2024

coffee

Usually at this time I would publish a blog post of the top ten posts of the previous twelve months. However WordPress have stopped doing free stats for blogs that show adverts. So I don’t have detailed stats about the top posts.

I posted 70 posts on the blog.

In 2023 I wrote 89 posts on the blog. There were 92 posts in 2022, 113 blog posts in 2021. In 2020 I had written 94 blog posts. In 2019 I had written 52 blog posts which was up from 2018 when I only wrote 17 blog posts.

So does your institution have a silo mentality?

Silos
Image by marcson from Pixabay

This was an interesting read on the WonkHE about higher education silos, Institutional silos are making it harder to build learning environments for student success.

Ask any higher education institution leader about the organisational challenges they’re grappling with, and they’ll start talking about silos.

Though talking about silos, the article is more about integrating digital into learning and teaching. The article concludes

As the digital learning and teaching landscape continues to evolve, institutional strategic agendas to make the most of technology to enhance student engagement and support won’t be driven by small teams of experts, or even by digital leadership. It will require all student-facing staff to have the confidence and skills not just to follow processes and use systems but to actively work to deploy technology creatively and interpret data to take forward improvements to learning and teaching (and that don’t depend on staff simply working harder and longer). To get to that point, institutional leaders will need to continue to find creative ways to break down those silos and build whole-organisation digital capability.

Though as anyone knows breaking down silos is hard. We often think of grain silos, metal cylinders that are close together, they should be easy to break, shouldn’t they? I always now think of higher education silos as missile silos, embedded into reinforced concrete and dispersed across a wide area.

One question that I have been thinking about after reading his article was, what typifies a silo mentality, and what enables cross-silo working? I think a key aspect is strategic thinking within the silo. If you have a unique strategy for your department, this is symptomatic of silo thinking. If you have a strategy based on, say the student journey, the staff experience, research impact, then you probably have already broken down your silos.

Last year I wrote this;

I wondered if silo working is another word for non-strategic working? People often complain about silo working and the resulting challenges that can arise. I think part of the reason why there are problems with duplication, conflict, and lack of communication, across silo working, is teams are working to their own objectives and aren’t necessarily working towards common objectives.

The WonkHE article talks about digital learning and teaching, if the owner of the digital learning strategy is the head of the digital learning team, then how will that strategy, not only communicate across the university, but how will it compete with all the other departmental strategies out there.

Breaking down silo working, isn’t just about saying, we need to break down the silos but is so much more about thinking strategically about what your organisation is trying to achieve. Recognising that even if your department is successful in achieving your strategic goals, doesn’t mean that the university is being successful.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing

Old Camera

I read the other day that UCAS applications for university were down for a second year running. This maybe something that universities should not only care about, they should be worrying about this and thinking about their planning for the next few years, even the next ten years.

I also read that Intel, the computer chip manufacturer were laying off 15% of their staff having failed to respond in an effective way to the use of ARM chips, first by Apple and then by many other PC manufacturers.

Throw in a podcast I listened to in the car the other day when stuck in traffic on the M5, which covered companies that failed to change. This included Kodak who did not adapt to the introduction of digital cameras, magazine publishers who didn’t understand the web, and even record stores that couldn’t adapt to the introduction of CDs or downloads.

Before I discuss the impact of the drops in applications for universities, it will provide some insights into looking at what is happening to Intel and looking back at other major companies that failed to respond to (usually digital) disruption. It should be said that hindsight is a wonderful thing.

When I started working at City of Bristol College in the early 1990s (it was Brunel College then), I worked in the Faculty of Business, Food, and Hairdressing. A large diverse faculty, and across the many staff we shared a single 286 personal computer. The 286 was the name of the chip that powered the computer. Intel at the time was the biggest chip manufacturer in the world. I read in the book, Good Strategy, Bad Strategy, that it had successfully transitioned from a manufacturer of computer memory to one that made computer core chips.

In the 1990s I remember upgrading computers to a 386 and then a 486. I remember the marketing hype that arrived in 1993 when Intel named the 586, the Pentium, in order to differentiate it from other chip manufacturers.

In 2002 I moved over to the Apple platform, buying a G4 PowerBook and later a G5 Power Mac. I was, like many Mac users, a little concerned when Apple announced the move to Intel back in 2005. However all wasn’t’ well for Intel, when they failed to deliver on the needs of Apple. Apple moved to fabricating their own chips, first for their iOS devices and then their Mac lineup. Apple announced in 2020 that they would be moving all their Mac models away from Intel chips to ARM processors. The M1, M2 and now the M3 chips power all their current models.

The problem for Intel, and probably is why they are now having problems, was that they didn’t just lose a customer when Apple moved to ARM, other computer manufacturers in an attempt to maintain market share and compete with Apple also started building ARM powered computers. Intel had not only lost Apple, they were also now losing considerable market share.

This month we saw Intel decided they needed to cut costs and have cut 15% of their staff. Will this be enough, maybe, but probably not.

The podcast I listened to discussed how Kodak did not adapt well to the digital revolution in photography.

It was interesting as it wasn’t as though Kodak ignored digital, they actually produced a handheld digital camera back in 1975.

However, company executives were reluctant to make a strong pivot towards digital technology, since it would require heavy investment, make the core business of film unprofitable, and put the company into direct competition with established firms in the computer hardware industry.

One of their own employees had written in 1979 that photography would completely shift to digital by 2010.

Kodak knew that digital was going to disrupt the market for photography. However they were unwilling to pivot and shift from their core business. They couldn’t see what they needed to change, as they were concerned with protecting their existing business.

Their customers and consumers made the move to digital and there were plenty of other companies out there who were being innovative and designing, developing and making the (digital) photography products that were being demanded.

It also probably didn’t help that Fujifilm started competing directly with Kodak in the US (and worldwide) in the 1980s.

You could say that Kodak didn’t adapt to the changes happening to their sector.  Kodak weren’t blind to the threats posed to their business, they knew what digital meant for photography, they designed and built digital photography products. However they failed to change enough to make a difference.

In 2012 Kodak filed for bankruptcy.

There are lots of other examples of how organisations and companies did not respond to changes and trends. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, as you can ask, why didn’t they change, they could see the challenge, they could have changed, they could have adapted.

The problem often is that though internally the organisation may know it needs to change, the current situation means they are unable to change.

That radical step is make radical change knowing that this will have a potentially negative impact on the business and your customers.

So is the drop in applications a bump or a trend? That we don’t know, but maybe we will this time next year.

So universities may know and realise that they need to change, but they can’t afford to make those changes now. As a result they may never change.

Should I stay or should I go….

It would appear that the remote teaching during covid is continuing to have an impact on attendance at in-person teaching. Alongside the cost of living crisis, rising costs, the need to work, and interestingly a perception by students that attendance at in-person sessions was unlikely to benefit their learning and their grades.

Scores of current UK students shared with the Guardian how they feel about attending university lectures and tutorials.

‘I see little point’: UK university students on why attendance has plummeted

About half of the students who got in touch said they were regularly skipping classes, with many saying they were hardly attending at all. A lot of students pointed to financial difficulties forcing them to prioritise paid work over studying, a lack of enthusiasm for the format of lectures, low motivation to get up and go in, and the perception that attending classes was unlikely to improve their grades.

We have to remember that many of these students would not have been at university during the lockdowns in 2020 and 2021. They would have been at school or college. Going forward there will be a continuing stream of new students who experienced remote teaching at school who will be attending university.

Polly Toynbee in the Guardian questioned in an opinion piece on university finances,

…why sixth-formers get so much more teaching time than university students at far lower cost.

The amount of in-person contact time that students have, is so much less than they experienced at college and school, that you have to ask, with less hours to attend than their previous educational experiences, they might value it more. It would appear that they value it less.

The financial imperative for work by students was also illustrated at the Wonkhe event, The Secret Life of Students.

The latest and most powerful insights on the student condition from Wonkhe and Cibyl’s Belong student survey platform and from across the HE sector.

I did a sketch note on that session.

There was a lot of things in there, about sleep, travel time, working, and time travelling to work.

A student also presented at that event and talked about how the need for work, would often trump attendance at lectures and classes. The student also questioned the value of attendance of in-person sessions which could be accessed through recordings later, or what needed to be learnt was learnt more effectively through resources and books.

Also see the original article that inspired the Guardian survey: Lectures in question as paid work pushes attendance even lower

Lecture attendance is now so low that some academics have started to openly question the future of the teaching method.

So what should universities do in light of this insight? What is the future of university teaching and how does it need to change? Also how does the university manage student expectations so that they stop seeing in-person teaching as a choice, and isn’t the optional extra of a university education.

Finally, and something I have been reflecting on this, what is the role of digital and technology in all this?