At the start of the month I attended the Higher Education Partners Network (HEPN) North event and represented the experiences of the online learning operational teams who implemented new technology and processes in a people-centred way. Here are some of the leadership points from the day I attended.
Entrepreneurial universities
One of the ironies of higher education institutions is the building of skills in students which are not always reflected in the values and operation of the university itself. The panel discussion on the entrepreneurial university was a great example of demonstrating in practice what students are being equipped for in ‘the real world’. Challenging the view that entrepreneurship is just about commercialisation, Ceri Nursaw (NCEE) set the scene that the entrepreneurial university is “adaptive, opportunistic, outward looking… responding to change.” The higher education sector is going through one of its biggest changes in recent times, more so than the impact of the Covid pandemic, with cost pressures, challenging employment landscape, the impact of AI and a socio-political environment that seems to be questioning the value of critical thinking. I may exaggerate, but my point is that institutions cannot stay fixed in how they respond to these challenges, so an ‘entrepreneurial’ mindset throughout the organisation from the very top through to each team and individual, may be one approach to ensure relevance, and if we are leaning into hyperbole, survival.
The panel of two Chief Financial Officers, Mark White (Aberdeen) and Mehjabeen Patrick (Arts University Bournemouth) was refreshing in the tone that valued the assets and people of the organisation, aligning the institutions to the needs of the ‘outside world’ with “purpose and intent”. White spoke about the importance of local connection, understanding businesses and the social value of the institution to its local area, as well as being visible to show the impact and significance of the organisation. In my view, this is something universities can do well locally, if not managing to achieve in conveying the value of higher education teaching and research at the national level. Patrick’s articulation of institutional risk appetite is particularly important, shifting the dialogue from being risk averse to “risk literate”. This mindset sets the institution up for accepting some failure, to learn from taking risks, within parameters that can be tolerated.
I find this approach essential when having to ensure we don’t conflate “risks” with “issues”. Risks are possibilities that can be mitigated, controlled or accepted, and in some cases the activity must stop due to a risk level being too high. However, if a risk exists with mitigation in place, that is not an issue until the risk manifests and impacts the business. If this subtle, but crucial, distinction is not understood, then the deliberative committees of universities can spend a lot of time trying to address issues that are not yet present.
Case study of innovation in process
Along with colleague Alex Rogers, and chaired by Eric Murphy (Babelquest, HubSpot CRM supplier), I discussed how the implementation of a CRM solution for online students at the University of Leeds adopted a way of working that required agility, rapid progress and accepted a level of uncertainty. The case study is online, but the fireside chat allowed a little more nuance to come out about our learning from this implementation project. The key points are:
- For decision-making, you can’t wait for perfect information. The university had to commit to making progress, accept some uncertainty, and learn as it went. That’s ultimately what unlocked the project.
- The technology decision was driven by what was right for these students and this use case, not by platform politics. And it took cross-directorate collaboration to make that happen (modelling ‘One Leeds’ philosophy of a joined-up institution).
- Implementation is dependent on people-centred change, supporting the quick wins, building confidence and acknowledging shifts of processes. Phased delivery isn’t just a project methodology, it’s how you bring people with you. When things go wrong, you learn and adapt before the next phase.
- The investment case is now proven by results that couldn’t have been predicted upfront. Unified data, simplified processes, and a student experience designed specifically for online learners, that’s the model. The data now powers continuous improvement.
This project was driven by a commitment to the student experience, and this was the guiding factor in how decisions were made about prioritisation, release of product and processes. My message to the audience at HEPN was to actually complete the student journey yourself. Discover the pain points and opportunities for improvement as a student. Only then can you really shift perspective from internal processes to being student-focused.
Diversification of income
I have to respond to an audience contribution in one of the sessions, about where the income goes from commercialisation of IP. Different universities have different policies about how much income is distributed between individuals and the institution, however my personal view is that any activity in the university is not down to one individual. Collaboration is key to my professional practice, as I realise the contribution of the full range of professional services needed to achieve my role objectives. Similarly, the facilities, resources (including Library and IT) and support which underpin all university activity needs appropriate funding, which has to come from a range of income sources. In my area we have a fully costed model, which has a high level of scrutiny and accountability, which is not always reflected in how other workstreams operate. Perhaps it is this lack of awareness over institutional finance that, in some cases, leads to assumptions that new income streams don’t have to support the ‘core’ business of teaching and research. These assumptions need addressing, with greater acknowledgement that previously established income streams don’t fund everything an institution has to offer or is needed to function.
Student leadership
The final panel session I attended was the student voice panel. What I would like to say up front is that I tire a little of how student panels are introduced, sometimes rather patronisingly, when it is clear the Student Union representatives on this panel were educational leaders in their own right (Nooralhoda Tillaih, Dewi Bloor, Forum Yadav and Zarrin Hassan). The topics covered mental health provision, students identities, risks of isolation by commuting students, inclusivity, communication, the value of university education and, of course, AI.
Tillaih described the “Future Fit University” as a concept to enable accessibility and inclusivity from the beginning. This model enables students to discuss adjustments with personal tutors without a declared disability and helps to shift ‘reasonable adjustments’ (as per Equality Act 2010) away from medical models of disability. Crucially, the opportunity here is by greater understanding of inclusive adjustments throughout the educator community, and detaching from formal (often slow) processes, the barriers to learning can be reduced more quickly and, potentially, more ‘as standard’. Empowering tutors to make adjustments will probably need guidance and support alongside this, to ensure equitable approaches if decision-making is delegated across a very large educator community. Standardised inclusive education approaches and awareness of individualised needs could enable quite significant positive impact.
Bloor championed proactive mental health approaches, which include embedding approaches to mental health in the curriculum, with a strong view that universities were not doing enough in this space. The panel responded in a very considered way to an implied challenge from the audience about workplace resilience and preparing for workplace deadlines, and certainly gave me pause for thought. To paraphrase: being resilient is ‘pushing on’, but that still requires support. In the real world sometimes you can’t hit a deadline because you are ill, it’s about how you manage those situations, thinking about solutions and how you ask for help, which are the skills universities could develop.
Finally, on AI and a particular case where an institution was rolling out AI-marking. The initial reaction of students was negative, noting that hours of student time invested in assignment writing, yet this shifted when it was explained how marking was the start of the feedback process, not the end point. There was a very thoughtful response from polarised views to understanding the nuance. In this case, assignments were still marked by academics, but AI was used to elaborate on the feedback, tying it back to the assignment criteria. In a way, this holds potential to support the academic to provide better feedback, and supports the students to take action on the feedback with clearer next steps.
Institutional appetite for change
The key take-away message is that institutions need to be able to change and adapt. This comes from the top, but also needs to be embedded in team culture. When we look from the student perspective, our students are needing to continually change and adapt to an unpredictable external environment. We have to model the behaviours and skills through how we set up our higher education institutions. Resilience to change does not come through hunkering down and carrying on, it comes through knowing when you need support, knowing how to adapt and being accepting of failure from which you can learn.
Leave a Reply