The Institution as Battlefield: Allies, Enemies, Non-aligned

Risk battlefield

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:

The full results are given in the table at the end, but the key results are as follows:

Allies

Non-aligned

Enemies

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

The individual member of staff’s perspective

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