1. Do institutional decision- making processes block innovation? Professor Mark Stiles Staffordshire University June 7 2010

2. The Challenge? How to free our staff to encourage innovation without losing organisational control? excessive hierarchy and over-heavy bureaucracy, the comfort of ingrained routines, strong vertical command structures and weak lateral and bottom-up communication, unbalanced and non-integrated authority across professional domains, conservatism and risk aversion, territoriality, defensiveness and insecurity as well as wilfulness (Middlehurst, 1998) The individual experts may be highly innovative within a specialist domain, but the difficulties of coordination across functions and disciplines impose severe limits on the innovative capability of the organization as a whole. (Lam, 2005) June 2010

3. Why do I say this? The last revolution, the one before that, and the one before that, all failed because we made the same non- technological mistakes each time. It's time to notice those repeated errors, learn from them, and escape the cycle of failure. Ehrmann, Stephen C., (2000) "Technology and Revolution in Education: Ending the Cycle of Failure," Liberal Education, Fall, pp. 40-49. Have we created a generation of students who are monitored, intervened with, and regulated as never before? (even if often with good intent?) June 2010

4. The problems/questions: June 2010 How are innovative “initiatives” initiated? How do you plan “against” success? How are innovations sustained? How can you manage innovation whilst promoting it?

5. Technology and Innovation in T&L June 2010 Traditionally: technology has allowed adoption of TL&A approches previously difficult to deliver/resource interoperability has improved management and development development and adoption has followed traditional IT paths

6. Technology and Innovation in T&L June 2010 But now: web apps, mobile devices, cloud, BYOT technologies stand/fall in a “mass-market” way. adoption by take-up and “critical mass” at the individual user level in multiple contexts - private, social and commercial. once spread into the mass market - become almost unstoppable

7. Adoption of New Technologies: June 2010 One model: 1. personal 2. informal learning 3. overlap into own formal learning 4. practitioners use as independent initiatives 5. success spreads rapidly 6. demands for integration with corporate processes 7. critical level of usage has occurred 8. institutions have to re-examine support, resources, processes, policies, regulations and governance

8. Adoption of New Technologies: June 2010 Another model: 1. practitioners seek a solution to a T&L problem 2. a possible technology is identified 3. what differs here is change is based on a specific process change or education model 4. IF the result of the selection process is adoption at the practitioner level, we revert to model one…

9. Adoption of New Technologies: June 2010 A third model: 1. practitioners, or a central team (acting against identified common goals) identify a TL&A problem 2. working with/by a central team, a possible technology identified 3. a trial/pilot of the technology is carried out 4. as part of trials, implications of success are considered in terms of organizational impact 5. IF trials are a success, technology is mainstreamed and appropriate changes to support, governance etc made

10. Adoption of New Technologies: June 2010 Problems: successful pilots not easy to “turn off” and can result in “fait accompli” even if pilots reveal significant organizational issues “vetting” proposed trails/pilots can result in practitioners “going native” (a return to model one) if too many are blocked/delayed a perception of “the institution getting in the way” can result in an effective block on innovation

11. Organisational Influences on Innovation June 2010 Strategy and Vision Policy (the rules) Governance (who makes decisions and how) Corporate attitudes/culture Other cultures

12. Not seeing the wood for the trees! We need a shared overview of “the big picture” June 2010

13. Other “big issues” identified so far: Need to join the “strategic top level” with the “independent change initiatives” – eg a programme management approach “Solution driven” projects June 2010

14. Solution driven initiatives: IS/IT departments tend to gain awareness of new technologies from a mainly technical viewpoint this can lead to a reactive approach rather than a view of their strategic potential problems solved one at a time resulting in multiple corporate applications linked “as needed” via enterprise integration lack of an overview of information interdependence results in multiple silos of information modern cost constraints make such approaches slow and expensive in time and resource June 2010

15. A “Thought” on policy… Bureaucracy can be a very real barrier to innovation, and much bureaucracy is founded on satisfying “sectional” needs or “regulatory” requirements I’d like to suggest part of our salvation lies in policy, but using policies which enable and facilitate and not control and regulate unnecessarily … June 2010

16. Policy External Strategy/ Politics External Policy/ Regulation Resources/ Finance DemandTechnology Internal Culture Internal Strategy/ Business Plans Stakeholder Expectations Internal Processes/ Governance June 2010

17. Little strategy exists for supporting innovation Reactive approach to innovation via bespoke solutions leads to processes & systems needing too much effort to maintain Lack of shared big picture means innovations are addressed independently - opportunities for sharing support and services missed As support burden increases – staff resource available to investigate new technologies reduces Lack of institution-wide data services disables innovators from "building it themselves" This leads to a more controlling approach Without Enterprise Architecture… June 2010

18. A clear big picture Give all operations (including innovations) common support and services Avoid addressing individual stakeholder needs to the detriment of others Innovators & organisation agree a governance model, eliminate organisational paranoia, and allow a light touch Identify & address big problems and cross-cutting issues Define the future environment to support innovation at a strategic level Give a roadmap to incremental change to achieve flexibility & agility Experimentation but with appropriate control of organisational data. Change default stance from "can't do because..." to "can do” The EA model offers: June 2010

19. Clear and appropriate governance Involvement of the right people in the right decisions A shared vision Inclusion of stakeholders But an EA approach needs: June 2010

20. business plans are formed from wider context and strategic drivers business architecture needs to be aligned to the business plan governance is formed from business plan + institutional values organisational values are vital to ensure cultural factors are properly accounted for e.g. what values influence the organisation’s view of data it holds? business plans may depend on culture change - but governance must also reflect the organisational values, attitudes and culture often the “big picture” is not shared across the organization and “organisational values” are actually at odds with internal culture(s) About governance… June 2010

21. A view of “Control” A possible “spectrum of control”: Control - to exercise restraint or direction over; command. to hold in check; curb Manage - to take charge or care of. to handle, direct, govern, or control in action or use Facilitate - to make easier or less difficult; help forward (an action, a process, etc.). to assist the progress of Enable - to make able; give power, means, competence, or ability to; authorise: to make possible or easy Recognise - to identify from knowledge of appearance or characteristics. to perceive as existing or true; realise June 2010

22. Possible loci of activity Institution Initiated – at a corporate, departmental, or course management level Tutor Initiated – as part of the learning process and conduct of course delivery Learner Initiated – either completely independently, or as part of the learners own learning strategy Using these in a decision-making “grid”, it is possible to position processes and systems and see if the positioning reflects organisational and stakeholder needs June 2010

23. Possible loci of activity Control level Institution Initiated Tutor InitiatedLearner Initiated ControlEnrolment Progression Summative assessment Course structure Submission of work for assessment ManageTutor led discussion Lecture Course Resources FacilitateGroup ProjectCourse/Group Discussion EnableFormal Peer discussion Blog of learning experience RecogniseInformal peer discussion Personal Blog Demonstration June 2010

24. Imagine this is a success… June 2010

25. Not “waving” but drowning? 1.Wave takes off - students & staff use it in their private lives 2.Students are using Wave to help their learning 3.Staff start using Wave with students. 4.Staff want to connect Wave to Blackboard 5.Certain uses of Wave are thought unsafe/undesirable via an externally hosted service. 6.A corporate Wave server is set up - connections between it and other corporate applications are sought June 2010

26. Thank you for your patience m.j.stiles@staffs.ac.uk Tensions between Innovation and Control: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6572643972 ENABLE: http://www.projects.staffs.ac.uk/enable/http://www.projects.staffs.ac.uk/enable/ June 2010