1. 1 The “e-University” concept Critical Success Factors revisited With relevance to Vietnam Professor Paul Bacsich 29 March 2004, Oxford

2. 2 Contents  Posing the problem  Review of the theory of “the e-University”  Revised criteria: a new synthesis  Conclusions

3. 3 The problem

4. 4  It is still a major challenge to set up a new e-university  And to grow e-learning from a base of (print- based) distance learning  The issues affects both single-institution and consortia models, public and private sector  The problem is neither purely a dot-com issue or confined to the “English” world – it was a topic at the recent AAOU meeting in Thailand  How can we do better?

5. 5 My background  Worked on telewriting and videotex for learning in UKOU in 1977-83  Analytic work for EU and EADTU in 1980s  Early CMC work from 1984: Australia and UK  Introduced FirstClass to UKOU in 1991 (JANUS project under EU FP3 “DELTA”)  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

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 The practice

9. 9 e-universities in UK  Open University (UK)  University for Industry (UK)  UK eUniversities Worldwide Limited (UKeU)  NHS University  Post-92 universities – Virtual Campuses  Scotland: Interactive University  Russell Group consortia

10. 10 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

11. 11 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

12. 12 And around the world  Australia: Deakin, Edith Cowan, USQ…  Canada: Athabasca, [OLA]….  Dutch Ou, Dutch Digital U  Finnish VU, Swiss VU consortia  Spain: UNED, Open University of Catalonia  India: IGNU, regional OUs, NIIT  China: CCRTVU, eChina (BNU/BFSU/Tsinghua)  Hong Kong OU  Malaysia: UNITAR, ….  Thailand: STOU, RKU, Assumption

13. 13 Types of e-university  Green fields/new build – e.g. UOC  Consortium – e.g. Finnish VU  “Orange skin” – Virtual Campus eg Middlesex  Those run or serviced by non-(public) university organisations – e.g. UKeU, Cardean

14. 14 Purposes behind e-universities  Government initiative:  national or regional or local  International initiatives:  AVU; ITU; UN VU (environment)  several imminent examples in Mid East now  Business opportunity:  Publisher  Broadcaster  IT company

15. 15 Critical Success Factors for Consortia  Binding energy  Organisational homogeneity or managed diversity  Stratification  Linguistic homogeneity Bacsich, for UNESCO

16. 16 Alternative 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

17. 17 European view (Bavarian VU)  Clear goals  Sufficient funds  Definition of USP  Clear target group and proposition/programmes  High quality  Student-centred pedagogy  Solid marketing strategy, growth-oriented  Common execution of project across partners  Common centralised organisational structure, specified responsibilities

18. 18 Other issues  Many national responses confused  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 DL But many institutions slow to change

19. 19 More is needed  Only a few big successes since the days of the “mega-universities”  Phoenix Online, UMUC  Many failures or problems  US: WGU, Fathom, NYUOnline, US OU  Even Cardean much shrunken  Canada: TechBC, OLA  Dutch Ou  Scottish Knowledge

20. 20 Reasons for problems  e-U’s - 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, especially in the dot.com era - likely for some

21. 21 Commercial e-U’s need to remember that...  Market-led courses are essential, even though market research is hard  “Time to market” is crucial  “Quality” is an unclear differentiator; price is; brand may be  MLE functionality is not so clear a differentiator, to students  It is not really even a 56 kbps world

22. 22 Public-sector e-U’s 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 (c.f. 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”

23. 23 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

24. 24 On pedagogy  There is no world consensus on pedagogy, not even across from UK to US!  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

25. 25 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

26. 26 Remaining factors (ctd)  Accessibility issues are starting to inhibit innovation in mass deployment  Will get worse if a “compliance culture” spreads out  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

27. 27 Further recommendations  Have plenty of funds, not all commercial  Hire some “names” from the university sector  Adapt existing systems; do a gap analysis  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, if only for the attention of Ministries  Get the outsourcing strategy right  Have an innovation strategy - in Europe, FP6  Be pragmatic – survival is the prime imperative!

28. 28 Standards  “Learning object” concept has difficulties that must be overcome  IMS – good work but still early days  EML (Dutch Open universiteit) – interesting  Assessment needs much more focus  both MCQs and assignments  Interoperability still hard  Major challenge is still co-operative learning

29. 29 Is research useful?  European research: FP3 set the scene; FP4 added little, FP5 more; FP6?  Canadian work lacked evidence of scalable approaches and discontinuity with TL-NCE  Too much gap between theorists and industrial- strength pedagogic practice theorists are usually in universities and not seriously active in e-learning services  US still too synchronous and transmissive  Australia too fragmented but key institutions  Big IT companies need convincing that research is directly relevant

30. 30 Thanks to UNESCO, EU, HEFCE, British Council, DFID, Canada, Australia, Finland, UKOU, SHU and UKeU Paul Bacsich pbacsich@ukeu.com