Innovative change, institutional policies and communities
(Image derived from Paul Bailey’s Wordle, generated after our session)
Last month we ran a session at the JISC Next Generation Technologies in Practice conference (10/11 March, Burleigh Court, Loughborough University). We were asked to consider Innovative change, institutional policies and communities. James began the session by outlining our project, the notion of disruptive technologies and our “5R” approach to analysing institutions and their responses to emergent technologies:
- Roles & Responsibilities
- Rules & Regulations
- Rewards
- Relationships
- Routines
For this session we focused on two of these areas:
- Rules and regulations, or more precisely formal institution-internal policies; and,
- Relationships, or more precisely communities that extend beyond the boundaries of the institution.
We ran two exercises, inviting session participants to identify relevant institutional policies and cross institutional communities. Then, using coloured dots, participants indicated whether each of the policies or communities was supportive (green), non-aligned (amber) or constraining (red) in relation to the innovative use of emergent technologies. Although time was short and hence participants had to make quick decisions, these exercises provide some insightful results and rich topics for discussion during the session. (An interactive session was also well received after a rather hearty lunch!)
Results: Policies (Institution-internal rules & regulations)
The results indicate considerable variability between individuals and between institutions. Some general patterns, however, stand out. In terms of policies, the strongest support for innovative use of emergent technologies was seen as coming from polices for Teaching and Learning and e-Learning, with strong support from policies in the areas of inclusion and disability and plagiarism. Departmental policies, Library and information policies and Quality Enhancement policies were also seen as mostly positive for innovation.
Policies which were more generally seen to hamper innovation were Corporate Visual Identity Policy, Service Agreements from the Computing Service, HR Policies, Student and Staff IT Policy & Computer Acceptable Use Policies, Course Accreditation Policies, Business IT Policy, and Data Protection and Privacy Policy (including Copyright).
An interesting observation suggested during the session was that more positive policies came from policy areas which are more ‘student-facing’ and less supportive policy areas are more likely to be ‘back office’.
We might also note that, overall, policies were seen as more likely to be constraining than supportive, with 108 red dots compared with only 77 green dots. (Full results are shown in the table below).
Results: Communities (beyond institutional boundaries)
The second exercise, considering the role of communities, gave much clearer results. Almost all communities (except the Business IT Community, the Senior Manager Community, and the Student/Staff IT Service Community) were seen as supportive of emergent technologies. In short, unless communities had formed around ‘institutional’ enterprise technologies, they were considered to be supportive of emergent technologies.
Perhaps this should not be surprising given that many emergent technologies are often linked to social networks and communities, rather than formal organisations and institutions.
Making an impact on the conference
Our session generated a large number of tweets, from attendees commenting during the session and from others in parallel sessions. In fact, in summing up the conference, Paul Bailey demonstrated two Wordle images from the twitterstream: before and after our session. Disruption indeed!
Full results for Policies exercise
Note: Red = ‘constraining’, Amber = ‘non-aligned’, Green = ’supportive’ (Ordered by number of green dots)
| Policy area | Red | Amber | Green |
|---|---|---|---|
| Teaching and Learning Policy | 2 | 0 | 10 |
| E-learning Policy | 2 | 0 | 10 |
| Disability Policy/SENDA and Inclusion Policy/Disability Accessibility Diversity | 4 | 2 | 8 |
| Plagiarism Policy | 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Library/Information Services Policy | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| Department and Faculty Level Policies | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Quality Assurance Policy/ QA Code of Practice | 6 | 4 | 4 |
| Quality Enhancement | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| Course Accreditation Policies | 8 | 3 | 3 |
| Assessment Policy | 4 | 0 | 3 |
| Student and Staff IT Policy/Computer Acceptable Use Policy | 9 | 4 | 2 |
| Attendance Policy | 4 | 0 | 2 |
| Communication Strategy | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| Equality and Diversity Policy | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| International & Cultural Policy | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Careers Services Policy | 3 | 2 | |
| Corporate Visual Identity Policy | 14 | 2 | 1 |
| HR Policies | 10 | 0 | 1 |
| Accounting Principles and Policies | 6 | 0 | 1 |
| Estates Strategy/Space and Accommodation Policy | 6 | 2 | 1 |
| Business and Community Engagement Policy | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Research Ethics Policy | 1 | 1 | |
| Computing Service Service Agreement | 12 | 1 | 0 |
| Business IT Policy | 8 | 1 | 0 |
| Data Protection and Privacy Policy (& Copyright) | 7 | 5 | 0 |
| Staff IPR policies | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Policy and Strategy Writing Policy | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 108 | 40 | 77 |
The Institution as Battlefield: Allies, Enemies, Non-aligned
Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs), like almost all organisations, are divided into different functional units. And, like almost all organisations, these units each have different images of the organisation, different priorities and different attitudes towards technologies. As a result, they often come into tension with one another leading to a pattern of alliances and conflicts. One way of thinking of the institutional response to emerging technologies is as the outcome of a struggle among different units within the institution.
To explore this idea, at the Chelsea programme meeting we identified a range of functional units or responsibilities within institutions and asked participants to identify those that were:
- allies: helping projects them to implement emergent technologies
- non-aligned: involved, but had a neutral stance towards the emergent technology projects
- Enemies who were obstructive or negative towards emergent technology projects
The full results are given in the table at the end, but the key results are as follows:
Allies
- Teaching and Learning Committee
- Careers Service
- IT for students & Staff
- Student Recruitment
- Staff Development Unit
- Alumni Office
Non-aligned
- Library
- Vice Chancellors Office
- Estates
- Human Resources
- Legal Department
- Student Union
Enemies
- Marketing
- IT for students and Staff
- IT for business applications
- Library
The most engaged functions (as allies, enemies or non-aligned) were the Library, IT for Students and Staff, Marketing, IT for Business Applications and Human Resources. The least engaged function was the Bursar/Chief Financial Officer/Finance Director.
These results are only indicative and include individuals from only a handful of institutions, but they do raise some interesting questions. Is it the case that the allies are mainly parts of the institution that deal with students, staff and ‘the outside world’ on a regular basis (such as Staff Development, Student Recruitment, Careers Service and Alumni)? Would emergent technologies develop more quickly if Finance Directors were more involved in their planning and deployment?
What about your institution? Does it fit this pattern? Who are your allies and enemies when it comes to emergent technologies?
James Cornford - IRET Team
| Function | Allies | Non Aligned | Enemies | All Mentions |
| Library | 2 | 5 | 3 | 10 |
| IT for students and staff | 4 | 0 | 5 | 9 |
| Marketing (responsible for the institutional brand, CVI, etc.) | 2 | 1 | 5 | 8 |
| IT for business applications | 2 | 2 | 4 | 8 |
| Human Resources | 2 | 3 | 2 | 7 |
| Vice Chancellor’s Office | 1 | 5 | 0 | 6 |
| Staff Development Unit | 3 | 0 | 2 | 5 |
| Legal Department (with responsibility for Copyright, IPR, etc.) | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 |
| Student Recruitment Section | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Teaching and Learning Committee | 4 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Careers Service | 4 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| Data Protection/Freedom of Information Office | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Student Union | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 |
| Estates | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| Registrars/Student Progress Office | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Alumni Office | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| PVC for Teaching and Learning | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| PVC for Research | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| PVC for Business and Community Engagement | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Research Committee | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| University Press Office | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Equal Opportunities Office | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Bursar/CFO/Finance Director | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
photo credit: Aaron Michael Brown via Flickr
Institutional Responses to Emerging Technologies
By way of introduction to what our ‘Synthesis and Supporting Studies’ project is about, Will and I thought we ‘d share a write up of a session we delivered at the JISC Next Generation Environments Conference. The aim of the session was to hear the experiences of attendees regarding emerging web technologies at their institutions. There was no shortage of opinions, but to continue the debate and in the interest of a balanced view, we’re keen to hear more!
To get them going, I started with a presentation designed to provoke a response by making some controversial statements about emergent technologies.
The key points were:
Do individuals still need institutions? An ever increasing range of sophisticated web services are available to any web user. This freedom of choice means individuals are no longer tied to using only the tools that their institution provides. Potentially, this should mean we’re free, happy and more productive, but is this always the case? Does the use of emerging technologies also bring about a change in working practice and do all individuals welcome this?
Who should decide what tools we use, when and how? Should institutions dictate what tools we can and can’t use? Should they be the sole provider of all services? Should they block external services they see as inappropriate or just not support them? If individuals use different tools to those recommended by the institution, what new responsibilities do they have with regards to institutional standards/practice?
How do we cope in a constantly changing environment? Web tools are emerging at an unprecedented rate, so how can institutions support individual users in such an environment? Are HE institutions naturally resistant to change and does that suppress innovation? If so, can this inertia be overcome whilst still maintaining control over reputation management, privacy, copyright and IPR?
Who are the gatekeepers to emerging technologies? Is it still IT services, or are they now just one of a range of potential service providers? Within an institution, who decides which tools are used? Management? Researchers? Teachers? Students?
What about the next generation? Do we need to change our approach to cater for people arriving with different expectations of what an institution is and what it should provide?
Our Findings
Summaries of the points raised in the subsequent discussions are provided below:
The institutional perspective
- There was a general feeling that we’re currently experiencing a “forever BETA” environment, and that institutions need to adapt more quickly to opportunities offered my new developments and also the changing demands from staff.
- Outsourcing should be investigated further and some institutions are already heading down this path. However, adequate service level agreements are required.
- Institutions should develop licensing agreements to allow them to run emergent tools or technologies on their servers.
- Regarding teaching & learning, institutions should ensure that change is driven by sound pedagogy and not by the superficial attraction of new tools or technologies.
The individual member of staff’s perspective
- Clear communications to staff regarding the wider e-environment are required, including supported tools and services and institutional requirements regarding IPR, copyright, data privacy. Induction sessions for new staff and refresher sessions for existing staff.
- Consider the ‘hidden’ users. What are their needs? What is the best way to develop their skills?
- Manage expectations. Support staff to understand the possibilities and limitations of emerging technologies.
- Break down some of the power relations within an institution. IT Services should engage with and support staff who are leading innovation and adopting emerging tools and technologies.
We’re very interested to hear your opinions and experiences re. how it really is at your institution, so please do comment. Alternatively contact us directly if you’d prefer to stay off the record!
Steve Boneham
JISC-IRET support team