1 E-tools for e-Universities Copyright, 2001 © Sheffield Hallam University Professor Paul Bacsich Sheffield Hallam University Great Britain

2 Overview – –E-Universities – –Procurement methodology – –Other methodologies, and comparisons – –Conclusions on theory – –What should you do in reality?

3 UK e-University/ies student-oriented quality offerings innovative flexible cost-effective disaggregated branding

4 UK e-University Structure and market Holding company collectively owned by HEIs Joint venture with corporate world Market: – –UK postgraduates and CPD – –corporate universities and businesses – –selected overseas markets – individuals, companies or governments

5 e-Universities - other players Open (Corporate) (e-)University (e-)University for Industry Scottish Knowledge, Sufi, UHI Cambridge and Oxford e-initiatives Cardean/UNext (UK) GUA/NextEd (UK) World Wide Universities Network (UK) Large new-university Virtual Campuses

6 Challenges to e-Universities Learning System Standards Change Management Roles – –of consortia – –of “conventional institutions” – –of funding agencies (HEFCE, JISC, etc) Cost structures? Procurement of systems

7 New Procurement Paradigm “conversation” between customer and supplier business models, iterating to BAFO“conversation” between customer and supplier business models, iterating to BAFO Generalised features:Generalised features: –system information (such as architecture, scalability, standards) –user information (such as “industrial- strength” reference sites) – “futures” on pedagogy and technology

8 Features 1 thru 6 Architecture (+ maths, chemistry…) Standards & interoperability Costs over life cycle Scalability (various aspects) User interface & compatibility Reference sites - relevant, big

9 Features 7 thru 12 Reliability - 5 9’s User empowerment Company size and stability Ease of support and training Ability to embed new technology (mobile etc) Ability to embed new pedagogy

10 Not yet relevant to large-scale procurement by end-users EML? Too early to say Other European work (ERILE): not clear Landon (Canada) - too detailed

11 Wise thoughts Collis: server independence Alexander et al (UTS): 8 criteria A’Herran (see later): should not depend on “surface” features because they are volatile

12 Hambrecht report Validates group communication, even in e-training Contains 5 procurement criteria But they can be absorbed in mine

13 Hambrecht 5 criteria Leveraging on standards Scalable to any size enterprise Flexible technology Easy integration with client systems Media rich

14 Australian criteria: JCU Administrators: – –Scalability, value for money, Integration Technicians: – –Robustness, user base, tech support, maintenance Course developers: – –Customisability, flexibility, legacy materials Learners: – –Consistency, accessibility, quality of design

15 Other relevant input to procurement methodologies Procurement: Richards - Selecting a Learning Management System you can live with, TMG Corporation, Vermont, 2000 eArmyU 2-stage procurement And of course JISC SJ4

16 Functionality Increasing consensus now that group communication is accepted; many exemplars bear this out JISC work on functionality: Britain & Liber, JTAP 41; FE MLE Group,... e-University (PWC report and recent work) e-training: getting ahead of e-learning Hambrecht: e-training

17 Hambrecht conclusions Higher retention of content through personalised learning Improved collaboration and interactivity among students Live (synch) Web-based course delivery expected to surge Online training is less intimidating than instructor-led courses Trend toward IT certification growing rapidly

18 Conclusions No answers to what is “best” Just a process to find your answer May not be wise to rush, just at present Professor Paul Bacsich Paul Bacsich