"The UG-Flex project has played a significant role in developing a more complete understanding of the concept and consequences of curriculum flexibility and the impact on processes and digital systems.? It has also delivered significant enhancements to the management of information at the University of Greenwich."
?
This is an edited version of the UG-Flex?Institutional Story (Final Report) from the University of Greenwich.
?
?
?
?
The UG-Flex project has played a significant role in developing a more complete understanding of the concept and consequences of curriculum flexibility and the impact on processes and digital systems.? It has also delivered significant enhancements to the management of information at the University of Greenwich. This new understanding as well as the enhancements to processes and systems are being used effectively by academic managers, academic and support office administrators as well as staff development practitioners and senior managers to improve the student experience, for those who undertake flexible study and well as for the wider student body as a whole.
?
There is a greater recognition among the project stakeholders across the university of the potential benefits that flow from taking a more holistic, joined up and collaborative approach to information management in relation to curriculum design and delivery.?
?
The project?s work has resulted in greater clarity in relation to institutional policy on the scope of ?flexibility? in curriculum design, namely that flexibility is not synonymous with curriculum proliferation, that it is easy to demand but hard to deliver, and is highly complex with far reaching implication for all areas of university business.
?
A primary driver for the project at the outset was a belief that the university?s systems and processes were acting as a constraint to the development of a more flexible curriculum. Over the course of the project this view has changed and where initially ?the systems? were seen as the barrier to flexibility it is now understood that the IT systems environment is merely one part of the wider institutional ?eco system?. A ?complete the picture also requires a clear academic rationale and consideration of academic practice, resources as well as an organisational culture and mind-set that embraces dialogue, continuous improvement and shared purpose.
?
The UG-Flex project has had a significant impact on attitudes and practice that will be sustained after the project?s lifetime.? Stakeholders, who have been adopters and champions, while representing a relatively small proportion of staff albeit from a wide variety of roles ? academic, strategy, information, professional services - have raised expectations around information systems and management of curriculum information and data and there is now a momentum for continuous improvement.?
?
?
?
Understanding of curriculum flexibility
The project has played a significant role in developing a more complete understanding of the concept and consequences of curriculum flexibility.?(See video clip for stakeholder comments on ?the complexity of flexibility?)?
?
?
Stakeholder engagement
Change management techniques, notably innovative stakeholder engagement strategies have been successfully deployed to support academics, administrators and information professionals to articulate their requirements for the management of the curriculum. This has in turn resulted in greater clarity in relation to institutional policy on the scope of ?flexibility? in curriculum design and led in May 2012 to the endorsement of a proposal to implement a new ?year round? academic calendar and framework in order to better accommodate existing curriculum models and to offer? new scope for diversification if appropriate in the future.
?
Managing Course Information
The project has made a series of bespoke changes to its proprietary student records system (Elusian/Sungard?s Banner product) that have added additional granularity to programme and course information and made this available to all users. These enhancements provide the scope for more effective management of curriculum-related information within digital systems at the University of Greenwich and are already being used by academic managers, academic and support office administrators as well as staff development practitioners and senior managers who may be termed ?adopters? in that they have recognised the value of using data and digital information to improve the student experience, particularly for those who undertake flexible study.
?
Recognising the value of digital information
?The project has contributed to making ?staff at the university more receptive to digital information - illustrated by numerous instances where staff have discovered existing functionality on the university portal and VLE and have attributed what they see as ?new? functions to the UG-Flex project!?Admittedly, sceptics remain and there is still some way to go to achieve a wholesale shift in attitudes amongst staff in recognising the full opportunities afforded by corporate digital information systems.??
?
Process Improvement
This said, as a result of the project?s work considerable progress at the University of Greenwich in developing a cross-institution collaborative approach to information literacy training and it is envisaged that this will increase uptake over time.?There is a greater recognition among the project stakeholders across the university of the potential benefits that flow from taking a more holistic, joined up and collaborative approach to information management in relation curriculum design and delivery as evidenced in the decision by the university to adopt the XCRI-CAP standard in 2011. ??The project has raised expectations among the different communities and interest group across the institution on the management of data and information. ?According to one Head of Department, ??there is a snowball rolling that we never had before?.We have actually got this idea of continuous improvement built into the process?people are now expecting changes?.looking for changes where they weren?t before.? (2012)? (See video below). ?From an information systems perspective, the project?s major achievement has been the greater emphasis that is now placed on the requirement for effective processes in relation to curriculum design, and the recognition of stakeholders of the pivotal role clear, transparent and enforceable processes play in running effective systems.?
?
?
?
?
Flexible Curriculum
The primary driver for the project at the outset was an aspiration to develop more flexible, accessible and vocationally relevant programmes. This vision was at the heart of the University of Greenwich?s mission and was outlined in the University of Greenwich 2006-2011 Corporate Plan.?In 2006 the University convened a working group to review current and potential arrangements for part time and flexible provision. This culminated in a series of recommendations, endorsed by the University?s Academic Council in 2007 that aimed to deliver a more varied curriculum to facilitate greater variations in the pace of study and provide a wider range of credit-rated short courses.?
?
Systems and Business Process Improvement
As these recommendations began to take shape it became apparent that the University?s systems and business processes needed overhauling to ensure that they could respond at optimum efficiency and effectiveness to greater flexibility in curriculum. ??By the time the UG-Flex project got underway in late 2008/09, there was a widely held belief that the university did not have the infrastructure to support flexible teaching and learning and in schools. ?It quickly became clear that the challenges the project needed to tackle were not restricted to one area. In general, levels of student and staff satisfaction with the systems that managed information and data were low:? There was long standing dissatisfaction that the student records systems that had been introduced in 1997 had been designed without sufficient academic input and criticism of the level of errors and manual corrections and adjustments that were necessary.
?
This level of dissatisfaction internally was set against a context where the University of Greenwich was regarded externally as having significant strengths in relation to digital systems and information management ? its staff and student portal was shortlisted for a Times Higher award in 2009. ?And yet, the opinion held generally across Greenwich?s 10 semi-autonomous schools/institutes was that they made the student records system ?work as best they could?.? ?At the same time staff based in central services ? notably information services and systems faced significant challenges since the devolved model over time resulted in a proliferation of school-specific processes and massive inconsistencies. School-based shadow IT - referred to by some as ?feral systems? were the norm rather than the exception ? a situation that was tacitly accepted by many as part and parcel of the highly devolved organisational model. ???
?
In contrast, a positive driver for the project was the knowledge that it was possible to deliver a significantly improved student and staff experience through process improvement. In 2009 Greenwich became the first HEI in the UK to move towards paperless admissions ?? an initiative spearheaded by Information Services and Student Affairs who succeeded in getting all of the semi-autonomous schools to agree a common admissions process. (An initiative also shortlisted for a THES award in 2012).
?
The project also adapted over its lifetime to place greater emphasis on the achievement of greater business efficiency and effectiveness by: reducing the number of manual workarounds undertaken by staff as a result of limitations in systems and processes and achieving better systems integration to promote more flexible use of the university?s estate for teaching and learning over the entire academic year.
?
External Environment
While UG-FLEX was informed at the outset by clear drivers, the project over its lifetime has at times faced challenges in realising the opportunities they afforded. ??Given the relatively long duration of the project, it is not particularly surprising that institutional and external policy on flexibility has changed over the project?s lifetime. Whereas the project had commenced on the premise that a more flexible curriculum was the overarching goal as well as being an institutional priority, evidence from stakeholder consultation, followed swiftly by a change in senior management,? exposed inconsistencies in how this priority was interpreted across the institution and also in where it sat as a strategic priority.? The evidence of changing patterns of demand away from part time study, outcomes of the Browne review and the shift in Government policy did little to ameliorate Greenwich?s apparent strategic ambivalence towards any significant growth in the number of flexible courses it offered.
?
Consequently the strategic aspiration for more flexible curricula ebbed and flowed over the project?s lifetime. The project responded by articulating a vision whereby there was a pragmatic acceptance that the project?s success ? impact ? should not be measured or equated with growth in the levels of flexible curriculum but in improvements that ensured that the experience of students on existing flexible programmes was of the highest possible quality.? ??
?
Student Experience
If anything the driver of improving the experience for students had been taken as given at the project outset, it was not until mid-way through the project that it was recognised as the primary driver, specifically addressing the poorer experience of students on flexible programmes in respect of management of their study, their progression and their levels of success. ?Additionally, the project?s explicit focus on the student experience was given added impetus by implementation of the ?Greenwich Graduate? initiative mid-way through the project?s lifecycle (Greenwich Graduate is the University?s adoption of a specific set of graduate attributes that we expect our graduates to leave equipped with by the end of their studies).
?
?
?
Downturn in demand for part-time study
Given the length of the project and its goal to have a lasting impact on the entire institution, it is unsurprising that the educational and institutional context is woven within and across the UG-Flex project.?Of particular relevance to Greenwich has been the continuing downturn in demand for part time study alongside the promise/potential for future growth from the change in rules on part time access to student loans; the introduction of full cost fees and higher student loans; and the shift in Government policy on widening participation which has come to focus on facilitating greater access to the top flight universities rather than widening access for all. ?In 2007-8 almost 9,500 (38%) out of a total 24.533 UK-based students were registered as part-time.? In 2010-11 this had dropped to 8,436 (30%) of 27,723 UK-based students.
?
The University of Greenwich is still recognised as a widening participation institution although this is now articulated differently and there is a vision of Greenwich as a ?university of choice?. ?This new emphasis on quality is set to continue going forward and is articulated in ?Charting a Course for the Future?, the university?s new strategic plan for 2012-2017.
?
Internationalisation
Numbers of students studying with overseas collaborative partners has increased significantly over the project?s lifetime from a total of 3,743 students in 2007/08 to 11,551 students in 2010/11. Consequently, although initially deemed outside of the project?s scope, this position became difficult to justify as stakeholder requirements were increasingly articulated in relation to the needs and interests of these students who shared many of the problems and frustrations experienced by home based students on flexible programmes.
?
Taking into consideration the increase in the numbers of University of Greenwich students based overseas with collaborative partners, the trend has been a 71% increase in the numbers of students studying on ?flexible? programmes that start outside of a September ? July cycle. However it should be noted that these figures are not directly attributable to the UG-Flex project.
?
Governance
Internally the project worked with the existing organisational context ? 10 ?semi-autonomous ? schools/institutes afforded a large degree of autonomy, supported ?by business support/professional offices. ?Base lining activity conducted by the project in 2009 exposed significant amounts of mistrust and frustration among staff in the academic schools and central services and these could be directly attributed to the consequences of divergent practice and customs that emerged from the highly devolved structure.
?
Stakeholder Engagement
From the outset the project sought to engage with stakeholders from across the entire institution, and this was partially successful. Representatives from every school and office, the students? union and an employer representative were invited to participate in the project management group or the project steering group and in the series of one-off stakeholder workshops.?Responses to this invitation and the extent to which school and office representatives actively disseminated information about the project among their colleagues tended to reflect a mixture of the pre-existing culture in each school and office, the attitudes of their senior staff / teams; the degree of interest in and actually delivery of flexible curriculum models and the level of engagement /usage of central systems and processes.
?
Over the project lifetime, five out of the 10 schools/institutes and 9 out of the 13 support/professional offices have had representatives as active members of both the project steering group and project management group - these representatives have tended to be senior representatives of their school / office. At a senior level support for the project has come from the Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic Development (who chaired the project Steering Group).? Student representation has been more sporadic, with elected Students Union officers attending the Steering Group in 2009/10 and 2011/12.
?
It was noted relatively early on in the project?s lifetime that the project management group and steering group brought colleagues together in a new context. ?The incorporation of at least one discussion theme into every project meeting was designed to promote discussion and debate between colleagues. This technique produced numerous frank and engaging exchanges as well as opportunity to share information and knowledge. ?(See this short video clip from an early project meeting in 2009) ?
?
?
Over time this approach succeeded in building up new trust and understanding between stakeholders and consequently these groups outgrew their original ?terms of reference? over the project?s lifetime and came to function as a dynamic and ?unique? space both for the project and for the wider university.? In the words of two stakeholders reflecting in April 2012? ?this forum has been very good?.it is completely multi-disciplinary in that it has got people from everywhere and it is able to discuss every perspective in one place?.?? ?conversations can run?..it has been a forum that is quite unique.??
?
Governance
The composition of the project?s stakeholder groups along with the appointment of a Project Manager and the Project Business Analysis (both external appointments) gave the project early credibility in terms of an ability to maintain independence and objectivity; it also meant the project was relatively well placed to adapt to changes to the organisational context. This was characterised by the appointment of two new Deputy Vice Chancellors in 2009 and the appointment of a new Vice Chancellor in 2011. Under this new leadership there has been a shift towards greater centralisation and oversight of some business processes, notably academic/curriculum planning and quality assurance. Where appropriate the UG-Flex was able to articulate recommendations arising out of its consultation and dialogue with stakeholders, for example in relation to the automation of quality assurance processes and? changes to prevent the recruitment of students to any new programme until all the conditions imposed by the approval process had been met and signed off.
?
Academic contracts
On another occasion, the project shared with the Director of Personnel stakeholder concerns about the extent to which the academic staff contract could deliver more flexible curriculum design and ensure that this was taken into account in the introduction by the university in 2010/11 of a new balanced academic workload model.
?
?
Systems Integration
The overarching strategy for student information systems at the University of Greenwich is to facilitate real time integration and provisioning as far as possible, using the student records system (SunGard Banner) as the authoritative source in respect of data on students and their curricula.
?
In line with this strategy, the key technical output anticipated at the outset of the project was to leverage the university?s existing systems infrastructure more effectively to facilitate greater flexibility in curriculum design and delivery.
In response to the requirements identified by stakeholders (described in detail under Project Approach), and after lengthy analysis, development and testing, the project launched two separate enhancements to the ?baseline? SunGard Banner product as follows:
- ?Additional functionality to capture, scrutinise and report on data on programme validation and review in order to facilitate better planning and tracking of course and programme approval and review; reduce reliance on disparate school-based unsynchronised ?shadow IT systems?.
- Additional functionality to capture up to 12 separate start months and to embed this concept into the system design in order to facilitate more efficient and responsive management of data on flexible students and curricula.
?
The new functionality consists of:
- New code written to create forms to cater for additional data requirement and associated new database objectives in the curriculum database to store and manipulate data
- Creating and running script to update data on existing programmes;
- New code written to change the user view of the self-service interface with the student records system to make the new data available to all users across the university.
?
The project also conducted detailed analysis that demonstrated that the student records system (along with most other systems run by UK HEIs) had been built on the default rules laid down by a ?standard? curriculum where teaching starts (usually on campus) in Sept/October and runs over three terms/two trimesters and completes in June/July.? At Greenwich the student records system enforces these rules on all programmes and students without exception and all ?non-standard? curricula is made to fit with a series of manual adjustments and workarounds that are simply not scalable or efficient.? A cost benefit analysis exercise conducted in early 2012 identified potential savings in staff time of upwards of ?200,000 that could be made by cutting out the need for manual adjustments, rework and duplication.
?
Reduction in manual adjustments and duplication
Literally hundreds of hours of analysis and reflection and discussion went into identifying potential solutions that would reduce the reliance on manual adjustment, rework and duplication.? In 2010/11 the project? produced a specification for a new configuration of Greenwich?s student records systems that would remove the distinctions between ?standard? and ?non-standard?.? This solution has not yet been implemented, first because of the challenges faced in coming up with a cost benefit analysis of the solution and second, once this was delivered, the significant upfront development costs far exceeded the resource available to the project.
?
Sector-wide application of bespoke enhancements
It is recognised that delivering such enhancements within a vendor based systems environment presents particular challenges in terms of application for the wider sector.?? The specific functional and technical specifications which support the two enhancements outlined above are of use principally to other institutions that use the SunGard Banner product to run their student records systems.
This said, many UK HEIs work with the same or similar product-based applications and the approach and techniques used by the UG-Flex project, as well as the documentation and process maps it has produced, will be of interest to IT professionals / teams based at other universities who are considering similar issues relating to how to deliver more agile and responsive information systems that can cope with ?flexible curricula?.?? The project team has already shared what they have learned through UK-based networks of SunGard Banner user (SEUG) and through hosting a visit to Greenwich by another institution.
?
Outstanding stakeholder requirements
The project?s stakeholder consultation activities exposed a series of additional requirements relating to the university?s information systems that were not possible to address within the resources of the project. However the Project Manager did work with colleagues in other departments where possible to identify and implement technological solutions to the issues raised by stakeholders. The outcomes of this work were:
- Implementation of a short course booking and payment system for non-credit bearing short courses run by the University of Greenwich, using an off the shelf package developed by WPM Education;
- Implementation of ?study path? functionality ?in baseline Banner ( version 8) ? a key component in managing complex student study pathways such a concurrent curricula in the University of Greenwich student records system;
- Coordination of a successful bid to JISC to implement the XCRI-CAP standard that allows course information from a ?source of truth? to be shared across and between organisations in XML format, enabling data to be more readily available, enhance data quality and improve efficiency. (See video clip below of discussion of concept in early 2010);
- Recommendations to automate quality assurance process (ongoing).
?
?
?
?
Initial Requirements Gathering
From the outset the project sought to engage with stakeholders across the institution and to use their requirements to inform the project approach and its outputs and outcomes.
?
In the period April ? June 2009 the project undertook an initial requirements gathering exercise which comprised four 3 hour workshops? involving around 60 members of staff (both administrators and academics) who used rich pictures to articulate key issues and needs. (Rich pictures are an aspect of Peter Checkland?s Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)). ?Participants were asked to draw and then describe their ?real world? impressions of curriculum design and deliver at Greenwich followed by their ?ideal world? impressions. (See this video clip from one of the rich picture workshops). ?
?
?
?
Project Scope
Over the next few months these were scrutinised and articulated into a scope document designed to be clear and easily understood by all stakeholders (See UG-Flex Project Scope 2009-10).
?
The intention was to work through each of the ?areas of investigation?, conducting detailed business analysis and further consultation on potential solutions.? Following discussion at the Project Management Group, Validation and Review was selected as the first area of investigation, followed by the Library of Academic Models.? In both cases the project found significant value in conducting thorough investigation and business analysis in relation to these requirements and conducted a comprehensive process mapping exercise using Unified Modelling Language (UML).
?
Mid-way through 2010, following a discussion at a Project Steering Group meeting when the assumption of a shared institutional commitment to flexibility began to unravel, the project?s approach was judged not fit for purpose. (The decision also coincided with a change of Government and the anticipation of a major shakeup in HE funding).? Following 3 months of reflection and re-examination of stakeholder requirements, the project scope was repurposed (See New UG-Flex Project Scope 2010-12)?
?
| 2009 - 2010 ?
| 2010-2012
|
?
Essentially the change from mid-2010 was that the project?s focus was on delivering the best support for the existing curriculum ? including flexible programmes ? and on improving the quality of this to ensure all students had the best possible experience and chance of success.
?
The outcome of this shift in the project?s approach essentially expanded the areas where the project could ?intervene and helped the project team to engage in issues where the project had struggled to be relevant to some stakeholder groups, notably with curriculum teams reviewing their courses and programmes. ??Most significantly, the project was able to tackle an issue of institution-wide significance, namely the academic calendar/framework.
?
Over the project?s lifetime the Project Management Group and Project Steering Group have monitored progress against the project delivery plan and work packages (meetings have been 9x and 3x a year respectively). The work packages have been updated regularly by the Project Manager to reflect the project?s developing / changing approach. Reports on progress have also been made to the University Executive Committee in 2009 and 2011.
?
Stakeholder engagement approaches
The project used a variety of approaches to stakeholder engagement as follows:
?
This method ?of requirements gathering was selected because it was considered to be an effective way to deal with the complexity of the ?problem space? the project was tackling - ?where there was no agreement even on what the problems were, let alone how to address it. Feedback from participants and also from the team responsible for analysing the requirements articulated at the rich picture workshops judged the method used to be appropriate, useful and enjoyable.
?
Four subsequent workshops with staff from schools and support/professional offices followed in 2010 and 2011 and used a range of techniques designed to elicit more specific requirements and information, including: Cause and Effect Analysis (?fishbone? diagrams) and the MoSCoW method.
?
- Student Engagement and World Caf?s
The project ?initially sought to engage and respond to students by inviting a student representative to join the Project Steering Group ? a partially successful strategy although the turnover of students posed problems in terms of induction into an already established group.? Subsequently the project sought to engage students through existing fora, notably through a working group set up in 2010 to develop strategies to engage and respond to new students.? An approach that proved to be particularly successful in engaging and capturing student views was the use of World Cafes.
?
- Use of video to capture feedback
Additionally, the project manager arranged to borrow a VOXUR unit (kindly lent by the T-SPARC project at Birmingham City University) to design a survey and capture student feedback on video.? ?(See blog post on this)
?
- Developing academic practice
The redefinition of the project?s scope in 2010 opened up new opportunities to link the project?s work with academic practice in relation to the curriculum. ??For six months in the first half of 2011 the UG-FLEX project manager worked for two days a week with the university?s Educational Development Unit, and facilitated training on some of the tools and methods developed by other projects in the Curriculum Design programme to support curriculum teams, notably the University of Ulster?s Viewpoints resources.
?
The engagement with the Viewpoints project was instrumental in the development by the project team along with colleagues in the Educational Development Unit of a new interactive workshop on student transition. ?See example of tools used in workshop.
?
An example of how the project acted on feedback was when it was observed that the project was not feeding sufficiently engaging with the needs of curriculum teams. As a result the Project Manager arranged the secondment to the university?s Educational Development Unit.? There was also a diversification in the engagement strategies used by the project with a greater emphasis on ?more ?submarine? tactics, using the Educational Development Unit networks and infrastructure to share practice, downplaying the role of the UG-Flex project per se.
?
The project?s approach to evaluation was to conduct a combination of formative and summative evaluation activities, using for example Nominal Group Technique, surveys, one-to-one interviews and group discussions. ?
?
A series of evaluation activities conducted by two evaluators associated with the university (internal but ?independent?) proved to be moderately useful in confirming knowledge of the low levels of awareness about the project across the institutions and in some schools and offices in particular. ?A change in the approach to the project evaluation was agreed by the Project Management Group in 2011 and an external evaluator appointed.? A series of interviews and workshop with stakeholders were conducted in order to assess the project?s impact and to make recommendations for future developments beyond the project?s lifetime. ? See also the project evaluation report and external evaluator's report on key findings.
?
?
Tangible Benefits
The UG-Flex project has delivered the following tangible benefits:
?
| Benefits | Beneficiaries | Details |
| More structured and granular information on courses and programmes and on students on the University of Greenwich student records system. | Academic staff (e.g. in programme teams), senior school staff (Directors of Learning & Quality and Resources ? ? | Staff had previously had to extrapolate information manually, often time-consuming and error-prone. ? Identified by stakeholders back in 2009 as major point of pain for staff in schools and central offices and it is anticipated that the will achieve considerable efficiency savings. See comments from one stakeholder?in this video clip. ? |
| Access to structured and granular data on curriculum | Students | Staff and students now have access to accurate information about their programmes of study, for example: online enrolment for students based overseas and online personalised timetables as well as the appropriate resources for their courses on the university?s VLE.?? See discussion in this video clip. ? |
| Better training and support in information literacy | Senior academic staff (e.g. Programme Managers, Head of Department) ? Educational Development Unit staff ? Human Resources staff | Surveys and focussed discussions with academic managers and the evidence from these is that many struggle to use digital information to fulfil aspects of their role and moreover were often entirely unaware how this information could be used to enhance the quality of teaching and learning.? ? Staff now have access to improved training and support materials in information management and digital literacies, tailored to individual needs.? This work is continuing through the University of Greenwich JISC-funded digital literacies in HE project ? A Training Providers Network was set up in June 2012 and is administered by the University of Greenwich?s Human Resources offices. ? ? |
| Tools to support staff to engage in high quality curriculum design, resulting in higher quality curricula, awareness and engagement. | Academic staff (programme teams etc.) All staff in schools and business support/professional offices. ? Educational development Unit staff | Using tools developed by the University of Ulster?s Viewpoints project and other bespoke tools, members of Greenwich?s Educational Development Unit are now working ?directly with programme teams to help them to explore how to improve their courses to maximise student success. ? Interactive Staff Development Workshop ?Snakes & Ladders?. See also http://ugflex.blogspot.com/2011/06/disseminating-good-practice-knowledge.html for commentary on how Greenwich has engaged with the Viewpoints materials. any thanks to Alan Masson and Catherine O?Donnell from the University of Ulster for their help and generosity with their time. ? ? |
| Improved quality assurance procedures and systems, notably for course approval and review. | Academic staff, administrative staff in Office of Student Affairs. ? Learning & Quality Unit | Procedures reviewed and improved for the approval and review of programmes; monitoring of programme approval and review automated and fully accessible to staff.?See short discussion in this video clip.? ? |
| Better knowledge and understanding of the complexities and costs of curriculum flexibility in an HE institution. ? | HEI and wider HE community (in UK and internationally) SunGard/Ellusian ? | See stakeholder comments in this video clip. ? We are in a position to share models for the adaption of systems to manage flexibility and an understanding of the complexity of flexibility in an HE institution. ? Ellusian are very interested in the outcomes of this project. ?We are seen as a point of authority in Europe?. |
| A model for stakeholder engagement, communication and dialogue that can deliver continuous improvement | Information Systems Professionals, Change Managers, Projects Managers and Academic Managers in HEIs | Stakeholder Engagement Tools: ? ? Stakeholder comments on achievement of continuous improvement ? Stakeholder comments on cultural change ? ? |
| Practical support for those involved in leading and managing change in HEIs (or any organisation going through change). | Change managers, project managers, senior managers in HEIs | ?Creative Thoughts on Change? a tool to support change managers. |
?
Cultural Change
An intangible benefit that the UG-Flex project has delivered relates to institutional mind-set / cultural change: It has been described by the UG-Flex project director (2008-12) as follows:
?
?We?ve made a journey from learned helplessness to a sense that actually we can take some control and we can make things happen?.. It was an idea a minute but actually people were sitting there saying we can?t get the actual day-to-day things to work?.Despite all the rhetoric Greenwich really wasn?t delivering the day-to-day business or really thinking what all this partnership and flexibility was? about. We were very good at having little working parties that told us why we really couldn?t do things??..UG Flex came along and people started to systematically try to work through and disentangle and pull out some of those issues and look at them in a systematic way . In a sense everybody grew up but everybody grew up from very different positions?..I think people started to grow up and grow together?. That is actually quite a big change. It sounds very airy fairy but it is not,? it is quite solid.?????
?
For a video of the interview with Maureen Castens the project director, see this video below:
?
?
Systems Interoperability
The UG-Flex Project is credited by the University of Greenwich's Head of Information Systems with having contributed to the achievement of significantly greater interoperability between systems in the period 2008-2012?have according to Gartner created a model at Greenwich that is in the top 5% of student systems in the UK.
?
| 2008 ?
| ?2012
|
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
UG-Flex as a catalyst for change
The UG-Flex project is perceived by stakeholders to be operating as a catalyst for change in all aspects of digital information / digital management of the curriculum. According to one academic from the School of Engineering, ?because of UG-Flex there has been an increased awareness of and demand for greater flexibility on the VLE?and there has been a response. ?Access is not denied any more?.Whether or not it was denied is immaterial there is more trust now.?
?
Model for more effective communication and continuous improvement
UG-Flex has offered a model for more effective communication and continuous improvement. Back in 2009 at the initial stakeholder consultation events, accounts of problems resulting from poor communication and knowledge silos were common themes. At the time the project did not envisage that it would be able to offer any tangible solutions ? it was supposed that these issues were far wider than the project and out of scope.? As the project draws to a close it is now recognised that the project?s stakeholder engagement techniques have provided a new dynamic to the institution that can be exploited and replicated.
?
Business Analysis?
As a result of the project?s use of business analysts, the university has a tangible example of the value of business analysis in identifying key requirement and intricate dependencies and well as wider institutional issues. ?In 2011 the office of Information and Library Services reviewed its structure and created a new Programme Management and Quality office, which includes dedicate project management and business analyst resource.
?
Achieving institutional change
Recognition that systems changes in themselves cannot and will not deliver a more agile, flexible curriculum at Greenwich have resulted in a series of proposals to senior managers to change Greenwich?s Academic Framework. Significant institutional change on this scale was not envisaged at the project outset.? ?
?
?
It is the view of the project management group, endorsed separately by an independent project evaluator that the UG-FLEX project has had a significant impact on strategy, policy and attitudes at the University of Greenwich that will be sustained after the project?s lifetime.?
?
Champions and change agents
Stakeholders who have been adopters and champions, while a relatively small proportion of staff, are nevertheless key change agents, and they now have raised expectations around information systems and management of the curriculum and supporting information and data and a momentum for continuous improvement is building.?
?
Changes to the academic calendar
Funding has been secured to initiate a new project to change the university?s academic calendar with effect from 2013/14, which is a direct outcome of UG-FLEX.
?
Forum for continuous improvement
A proposal has been made to continue the project management group as a forum to discuss, debate and reflect on continuous improvement in information systems after project formally comes to an end in July 2012.? ?
?
?
?
It is envisaged that this forum will feed directly into plans for further enhancements to the student records system and related systems and processes.? Specifically, the issue of introducing a single point of re-registration for all students irrespective of their start point (a major point of pain for students articulated at the project workshops in 2009) has yet to be resolved and this ?a priority for further enhancements going forward.
?
Banner Community
Thanks to dissemination activities undertaken as part of the project plan, there is a good level of awareness of the project?s work, particularly among other HEIs who use the Banner system to manage their student records. In March 2012, the project hosted a good practice visit by representatives from UCLAN to share its research into the options for building a more agility and responsiveness into Banner.
?
Recommendations for sustainability
In July 2012, the external project evaluation report was presented? to the UG-FLEX Steering Group. This report contains nine recommendations for how the project?s work can be sustained and embedded towards supporting the University of Greenwich?s key strategies.?? The Steering Group agreed that these recommendations should be formally presented to the Vice Chancellor and the four deputy Vice Chancellors at the earliest opportunity in the new academic year, with a view to adoption of at least four of the recommendations by 2013/14.
?
?
Unanticipated benefits
The UG-Flex project has delivered significant impact and benefits to staff and students at the University of Greenwich. However these are slightly different to those originally envisaged at the project?s outset? and this can be attributed to a combination of changing external drivers and contexts and the impact or otherwise on Greenwich circumstances and priorities.
?
Understanding complexity of curriculum 'flexibility'
While it is not yet possible to measure the project?s impact on the levels of flexible curriculum design, the?project has helped Greenwich to understand that achieving greater flexibility in the curriculum is very easy to say but incredibly difficult and complex to deliver.? Where initially ?the system? was seen as the barrier to flexibility it is now understood that systems enhancement is only part of the bigger picture. To complete the picture requires a clear academic rationale and consideration of academic practice, resources as well as an organisational culture and mind-set that embraces collaboration and cooperation towards a common goal.
?
Improving the learning experience
Further, the project can also demonstrate that it has improved the quality of the experience of students following existing flexible programmes. Overall there is greater recognition that flexible curriculum design and delivery must be of a high quality.?
?
Cost Savings
As a result of the enhancements delivered by the UG-Flex project there have been cost savings (of up to ?100,000) in terms of a reduction of staff time spent on manual adjustments or rework. It is anticipated that there will be a continued savings going forward along with benefits in terms of institutional reputation resulting from an improved student experience.
?
Institutional change takes time
Change on this scale will take a long time: there is evidence of a large degree of change among a relatively small proportion of staff at Greenwich and potentially a combination of bottom up recommendation and word of mouth together with more strategic interventions in relation to training and policy will succeed in embedding the change the project has achieved.
?
The communication challenge
One of the biggest challenges for the project team has been to communicate the project?s work and impact to external institutions/audiences in ways that will emphasize their value. ??Hopefully this report and the resources it signposts will provide assistance to others, not least by ?normalising the degree of uncertainty, shifting priorities and? unexpected learning that is part and parcel of any attempt to deliver meaningful institutional change with the consent and input of stakeholders.
?
Top Tips
- Anticipate chaos
- Engage stakeholders and keep them engaged
- Use business analysts
- Develop and maintain a project ethos of objectivity
- Use a blend of objective project management strategies (i.e. Prince2) with low key ?pervasive? interventions that encourage stakeholder to identify and understand problems and to engineer their own solutions
What would we do differently?
- Allocate more funding to business analysis and less to development;
- Expect more from stakeholders once they have become adopters of the project?s goals (e.g. dissemination to their associates / colleagues, contributions to project blog);
- Maintain efforts to secure greater engagement from more staff and students throughout project lifetime;
- More use of video throughout project;
- Use a blog more effectively as an up-to-date tool for communication;
- Get JISC to recommend / appoint an external evaluator right from the outset.
?
?
Source: http://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/Curriculum%20Design%20at%20the%20University%20of%20Greenwich
wrestlemania results womens final four josh hutcherson google april fools office space shell houston open mega millions winners
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.