1. 1 Rescuing the “e-University” concept Earlier work on Critical Success Factors revisited… with relevance to Hong Kong Professor Paul Bacsich Hong Kong Open University, 19 May 2004

2. 2 Contents  Posing the problem  Review of the theory of “the e-University”  Revised criteria: a new synthesis  General conclusions  Implications for Hong Kong

3. 3 The problem

4. 4  Most commercial e-universities have failed, downsized or overspent their development funds  Many public sector e-universities have also had problems  These have affected both single-institution and consortia models  The problem is neither purely a dot-com issue or confined to the “English” world  So what is going wrong? And how can it be put right?

5. 5 My background  Analytic work for EU and EADTU in 1980s  Introduced FirstClass to UKOU in 1991  Set up Virtual Campus Sheffield Hallam U: 1997  Consultancy work for “e-U” then UKeU: 2000 on  Analytic work on “Virtual U’s” - UNESCO: 2001  Speaker at several HK Web Syms over 10 years  Working with Dr Steve Ehrmann for HK Poly U as advisor on evaluation of ICT in Hong Kong schools

6. 6 The theory

7. 7 Global eLearning trends  “A successful knowledge-based economy depends upon availability of skill sets”  “Governments are determined to deliver step change in higher education outcomes”  Growing competition for in-demand skills  In-country provision important for recruitment and retention  “Growing use of technology-based learning”

8. 8 e-universities in UK  Open University (UK)  University for Industry (UK)  UK eUniversities Worldwide Limited (UKeU)  NHS University  Russell Group consortia: WUN and U21  Post-92 universities – Virtual Campuses  Scotland: Interactive University

9. 9 UK: Oxbridge and Russell Group  World University Network (WUN)  Sheffield, Leeds, York, Bristol, Manchester, Southampton – plus US partners  Universitas21:  Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Nottingham  Cambridge-OU alliance (UKeU pilot)  Oxford with Stanford, Princeton, etc

10. 10 UK: New Universities  Sheffield Hallam  early Virtual Campus  Robert Gordons (Scotland)  early Virtual Campus  Ulster (N Ireland)  later Virtual Campus  Glamorgan (Wales)  Middlesex (London)  Global University Alliance: Derby+Glamorgan plus others non-UK hosted by NextEd

11. 11 And around the world  Australia: Deakin, Edith Cowan, USQ…  Canada: Athabasca, [OLA]….  Germany: FernUniversitat  Catalan Open University  Dutch Ou > Dutch Digital U  Hong Kong OU  Swiss VU, Finnish VU  India: IGNU  Thai OU (STOU)  China CCRTVU?

12. 12 Types of e-university  Green fields/new build – e.g. TechBC  Consortium  “Orange skin” – Virtual Campus  Those run or serviced by non-HE organisations

13. 13 Purposes behind e-universities  Government initiative:  national or regional or local  International initiatives:  AVU; ITU; UN VU (environment)  several examples in Mid East (SVU)  Business opportunity:  Publisher  Broadcaster  IT company

14. 14 Critical Success Factors for Consortia  Binding energy  Organisational homogeneity or managed diversity  Stratification  Linguistic homogeneity Bacsich, for UNESCO

15. 15 Complementary view  Bottom up is good  Realism  Common vision  yet clear differentiation of roles  Management and marketing (funded)  Contracts in place and accepted by all  Role models of other consortia Harasim, TL-NCE

16. 16 Other issues  National responses still confused  many agencies without clear mission  Increasing consensus on mainstream e-pedagogy and evaluation but big national differences on how seriously cost-effectiveness issues are addressed  Truly international consortia do not yet exist  E-learning still growing through (print) DL But many institutions slow to change  TV-based dying, slowly………

17. 17 But not enough  Few big successes:  Phoenix Online, UMUC  Many failures or problems  US: WGU, Fathom, NYUOnline, US OU  Even Cardean much shrunken  Canada: TechBC, OLA  Dutch Ou > DDU  Scottish Knowledge > IU  UK: UKeU downsizing and sale  adverse press and other comment on Ufi  NHS U already criticised yet has hardly started!

18. 18 Reasons  They - or their funders? - did not understand the existing CSF literature - likely  New CSFs are emerging - also likely  Bad luck - not likely for all  Bad management - likely for some

19. 19 Commercial e-Unis need to learn that...  Market-led courses are essential, even though market research is hard  “Time to market” is crucial, so is cost of marketing  “Quality” is not a differentiator; price is; brand may be  MLE functionality is not now a differentiator  It is not really an English-speaking world in HE, or even a 56 kbps world  They must be a university and a company - few can do that; it affects everything (IT, HR, etc)  Good management and staff are essential - think where they are to come from  universities are cautious and needy/greedy

20. 20 Public-sector e-Unis need to learn that...  There still must be a business model even if it is not commercial, funds do not just appear!  Flow of funds to partner unis is always an issue  Open source is part of an answer not the answer (cf Malaysia)  Consortia are hard to manage, especially large ones (earlier CSFs are still valid)  While a single MLE may not be acceptable in a consortium, interoperability is not yet “there”

21. 21 Non-degree courses  Almost all successful e-universities have a substantial non-degree programme  OU, UOC, IU (SCHOLAR)  This allows focus on individual training (e.g. in IT), a corporate focus, smaller modules, less regulatory burden, less dependence on partner universities, etc etc

22. 22 On pedagogy  There is no world consensus on pedagogy, not even across the Atlantic or Pacific  Very often the “pedagogic consensus” is not even explicit  Many pedagogic theories are not sustainable in business terms or in terms of what students (or employers or regulators) want  Especially in international operations, one must be flexible in pedagogy

23. 23 On sales/marketing/PR  It is essential  There is not the financial margin in the system to use conventional techniques (people, press, TV, etc) especially across the world  A weightless product needs weightless techniques  Corporate customers are cautious, they do not choose newcomer suppliers  It is hard to avoid competing with your suppliers/partners

24. 24 Remaining factors...  Intellectual Property is much talked about as an issue  But it is not a CSF “show-stopper”  Ethical considerations are starting to inhibit research/evaluation and the situation could get worse  Staff development is an endless and thankless task, but must be done again and again, as staff move on and retire

25. 25 Remaining factors (ctd)  Accessibility issues are starting to inhibit innovation in mass deployment  Will get worse if a “compliance culture” spreads out from US/UK  Multi-standard services (PC/Mac/Unix) are getting harder to do and more restrictive in functionality  Lack of clear view on “mid-band” (512 kbps) is inhibiting service development  Not discussed: standards, research.

26. 26 Further recommendations  Have plenty of funds, not all commercial  Hire some “names” from the university sector  Adapt existing systems; do a gap analysis; do not build from scratch!!!  If commercial, accept the need for sales staff and value their input; if public-sector, do good PR  Keep a close eye on competitors - they always exist  Get the outsourcing strategy right  Have an innovation strategy - in Europe, FP6  Be pragmatic – survival is the prime imperative!  Hire and foster talent

27. 27 What should UK do?  Well, what do you think?

28. 28 What went wrong with UKeU?  Timing - dot.com crash  Focus  Branding  Platform  Impatience of funders  University view  insufficient financial incentive to universities  marketing and “tone”  too few links with UKOU (say UKOU apologists) OBHE, reported in Schmoller

29. 29 Suggestions: Hong Kong  Do not wait any more for big “national” overseas partners to find you  that era is over, it is the “meso” era now  take charge yourselves!  Be very cautious about building your own MLE, it takes too long and costs too much  Be very realistic about language levels  Be (very) patient in terms of RoI  Collaborate in small groups of universities, respecting different strengths; or bring in all, but under central direction!

30. 30 Thanks to UNESCO, EU, HEFCE, British Council, DFID, Canada, Australia, Finland, Hong Kong UKOU, SHU, UKeU and WUN Paul Bacsich Director, Matic Media Ltd and Virtual Campus Ltd pbacsich@runbox.com