TENCompetence Open Workshop GMEX Jan 2007 Control freaks in a sharing world - a bit of a dilemma? Prof Mark Stiles Head of Learning Development & Innovation

TENCompetence Open Workshop GMEX Jan 2007

Control freaks in a sharing world - a bit of a dilemma?

Prof Mark StilesHead of Learning Development & InnovationStaffordshire University



Outline

Institutional strategy & policy are challenged by technological change

•Innovation and Strategy - a quick look•Some Personal Experiences - from Revolution to Stalinism to Perestroika•More about Innovation•More about Universities•The new factors•About control•A framework for considering policy and strategy


“Embedding”

• all policies, procedures, roles and responsibilities pertaining to the use of eLearning are fully integrated – not just with each other, but with those applying to “normal” practice.

• eLearning is part of the culture of the institution, and is seen by all as part of normal working practice, and as part of the normal portfolio available to facilitate learning by teachers and learners.


The point of strategies“Everyone” starts out with a eLearning strategy - either stand-alone or embedded in another strategy

BUT:

Strategies tend to be about introducing or extending eLearning & e-Environment not their “normal operation” - i.e. they are “Objectives” driven

Once objectives are attained, the focus tends to move elsewhere…


The Strategy game…

“Build it and they will come…” (“Field of Dreams”)



“Build it and they will come…” (“Field of Dreams”)



“Let a thousand flowers bloom”



“Let a thousand flowers bloom”



“The philosophers have interpreted the world – the point is to change it”(Karl Marx)



“The philosophers have interpreted the world – the point is to change it” (Karl Marx)



“Seed change by funding innovative projects”



“Seed change by funding innovative projects”


In Reality…

• All these approaches both succeed and fail(In part)


Staffordshire 1996 - 2002

• “Transformational” Strategy with:

– first, “seeding change” projects by bid

– then, “seeding change” projects by departmental plan


And, by 2002…

– Significant Cultural Change– Many modules using e-learning for “real”– Successful distance e-learning awards– Good “width” of penetration across institution– Strategies “quite” well joined-up– Recognition and QAA success– Staff getting rewards


But...

Problems with development approach:

– Lateness, creep, false expectations– Late delivery, academic workloads– Support staff not always effectively or fully involved– Localised impact– Not a “learning organisation”


and...• Rate of change slowing

• “Projects” rather than “Production”

• Big holes in the “admin net”

• Support uneven

• SURF partners showed weaknesses in P2R2

• Planning insufficiently sharp

• Core support involved too late

• P2R2 not “joined up”

eLearning not embedded – University not Agile

P2R2 - Policies, Procedures, Roles and Responsibilities


Staffordshire 2002 -2006

“eL-P3R2” - Focus on Policy, Procedure, Process, Role and Responsibility:

Included:

– The integrative approach to course development

– Holistic quality assurance and course development planning

– Addressing “vertical” and “horizontal” organisational coherence

– SURF partnership working


Reinforcing the Message

The “rules of engagement”

‘Vertical coherence’– Policy

‘Horizontal coherence’– Operational Policies, Procedures, Roles and

Responsibilities

Changing behaviour influences culture


eLearning Policy

Designed to address/achieve:

• flexible and independent learning; informal and individual learning.

• equity of opportunity and alignment of student support• provision of a learning environment encompassing all of the

learning experience • supporting the independent and lifelong learner and continuing

professional development• access to eResources from point of need; repurposing and reuse • robust quality assurance/enhancement with scope for

innovation and employment of professional skills


eLearning Policy

Designed to address/achieve:

• encouragement of research, scholarship and development in eLearning

• appropriate staff development, to ensure understanding of others’ roles

• practice, policy and strategy are responsive to lessons learned and new opportunities; removing barriers that impede or restrict effective eLearning.

• resources and support are appropriate to requirements and understood

• pricing of eLearning is both competitive and appropriate to the target populations.


So now…

• eLearning embedded in Strategies e.g. Information, Learning Teaching and Assessment

• eLearning Policy acts as change enabler

• Operational Policies, Processes and procedures being aligned e.g. Quality Assurance, WBL

• Goal - eLearning just part of normal practice “e” disappears


But…

• Rate of increase of use is high but mainly eSupported or “mundane”

• Mainstream probably now less innovative than before

• P2R2 focus seen by some as “Stalinist”

• Enthusiasts and Innovators subverting policy


Freedom vs. Control

How to “loosen the chains” to encourage innovation without losing control?


Innovation

“the intentional introduction and application within a role, group or organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption, designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, organization or wider society”. (West and Farr, 1990)

• What makes innovation happen and work is still not well understood

• Organisations struggle to sustain innovation long term


Innovation - Factors

Characteristics of innovative corporations:

• Clear vision of an “innovative company” and the support needed to sustain it.

• Visions tied to the realities of the marketplace. • Total organization flat and project teams small. • Managers encourage the parallel development of several

projects. • Learning and investigation cut across traditional functional

lines• Uses groups functioning outside traditional lines of

authority.

(from James Brian Quinn)


Innovation Management and Culture

• What does the organisation WANT from innovation? - e.g. effectiveness, quality, satisfaction

• Reward behaviours that contribute to innovation - remove barriers that impede it.

• Specialisation, standardisation and centralisation inhibit innovation.

• Values such as rigidity, control, predictability, stability and order inhibit innovation

• In must be OK to fail and make errors


Technical Innovation – a problem approach

Centralised adoption of new technologies which are then “spread” through the organisation:

Tends to assume:the innovation is inherently a good ideapeople will make use of itfailure of take-up is “their” fault or an organisational failing

Doesn’t help learn what new technologies help and don’t

Technological innovation:involves competition and conflictno “right answer”one size doesn’t fit all has periods of stability and change


“The Learning Organisation”

• Anticipates and adapts to new pressures and drivers

• Can readily develop new products, processes, and services

• Learns from competitors and collaborators

• Effectively transfers knowledge around the organisation

• Learns from mistakes

• Uses employees at all levels at an organisational level

• Can implement strategic changes quickly

• Actively encourages continuous improvement in all areas


Communities & Networks of Practice

• A natural CoP is largely informal and of people with similar activities and interests

• Organisations can have multiple CoPs and CoPs can cross organisations

• Innovation normally happens where different CoPs meet (or usually don’t)

• So CoPs can actually act as a barrier to innovation

• NoPs are normally cross-organisational but still have distinct (professional) cultures

• NoPs work well with a “field” but not outside of it, even within an organisation

• Hence Professions - and their cultures - can be a barrier to innovation.


Communities & Networks of Practice

• Management set up CoPs to structure and control innovation

• This “appears” to work but NOT for radical innovation

• Radical innovations depend on cross-field synthesis

• Managers need to draw CoPs together

• “Created” CoPs tend to focus on what the manager is looking for instead of practice

• Innovation tends to redefine professional tasks, and result in “partisan” conflicts


Universities: Control & Barriers

Much is outside the control of the individual tutor and learner

• Much institutional structure and policy controls tutor and learner behaviour

• Academic culture and discourse are, in their own way, conservative

• Many students do not actually appreciate “learner-centredness”(This is reinforced by the “business model” of the student)

• Moves away from the orthodox which reduce control are often opposed by those who currently control the process in question

• Multiple external drivers for “controlling approaches”


Universities: Management

• No single Institutional culture - consists of multi-subcultures

• Subcultures are typically in conflict and need to understand each other for Institutional culture to be addressed

A University can be typified as a “Professional bureaucracy”:

A decentralised mechanistic form which accords a high degree of autonomy to individual professionals. Characterized by individual and functional specialization, with a concentration of power and status in the ’authorized experts’. 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.

(Mintzberg)


The “new factors”

• SOAs and the e-Framework

• Systems such as ePortfolios

• “Web 2.0”

All of these pose challenges for institutions around ownership and control of processes, systems and information


Process ownership

In education many processes are inter-organisational and:

• Loose in structure • Based on informal cooperation • Have no explicit or implicit agreement on process ownership

Process ownership has become very complex and can involve:

• Process designer• Process manager• Process users• Software designer• Software procurer• Software users


What is ownership?Ownership includes:

• possession - “right to determine the uses of assets“• authority - a variable aspect of ownership• control - roles and responsibilities - refine ownership

of systems and their interoperation

Ownership of “a computer system” involves hardware, software, and processes, and is probably divided among a number of parties.

Who owns the relationship between interoperating systems?

Someone must have the right to alter or sever a relationship.

Orchestration and Choreography are important here(based on Carney et al)


What is ownership?

Data Ownership

- an individual is empowered to make decisions, and can act to address “his” needs

- designs and controls own processes

Data Stewardship

- a facilitation role. - uses a consistent process to achieve alignment

across organization - needs of “all” considered

Data Custodian

- responsible for physical security of data - creates and enforces data standards

(Schlenker)


Web 2.0

Tutors and learners will build their own toolsets from: • what is provided by the institution • what they have on their own (personal) computer• what is available on the Web.

Learners will• “opt out” of systems institutions and tutors might prefer

them to use for formal learning activities• initiate “sharing” and “community” activities outside of

the formal learning experience using tools they themselves have chosen.

• engage with and draw on much wider and more diverse communities.


Web 2.0

A varying spectrum of control and ownership require thought about:

• how learning strategies will be articulated• how they will be communicated to learners • how learning will be managed and facilitated• how learners can translate outputs from self-generated

activity

There is in effect a blurring between informal and formal learning and the key to understanding the future may be in understanding the nature of this intermediate zone and how, why and what activities and artefacts exist within (and pass through) it.


Web 2.0

Practitioners will need to:• cope with a very diverse range of approaches taken by learners• guard against making stereotypical assumptions• consider how their chosen learning strategies may be

interpreted by learners

Institutions will have to consider what (and at what level) they need to control and/or influence and what might be “let go” or exploited.

This impacts on quality assurance, academic planning, course design and development, and the core process.

Institutions need to be sure that that an appropriate approach to ownership is being taken in any given context.


A Decision-making Framework

The world will consist of:

• Institutional systems• External systems – both web and organisational• “Private” toolkits• And interoperating mixtures of these!

It will require a cultural shift in how IT management view risk and control the use of systems by tutors and learners.

Some form of decision making tool is need to inform strategy and policy and hence influence and guide practice.



A possible “spectrum of control”:

Control - to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command. to hold in check; curb

Manage - to take charge or care of. to dominate or influence. 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



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 should be possible to position processes and systems and to reflect on the validity of the positioning. Once positioning is decided, strategy and policy can be examined to see if they reflect the organisational needs arising


A possible framework?

Control level

Institution Initiated

Tutor Initiated Learner Initiated

Control Enrolment

Progression

Summative assessment

Course structure

Submission of work for assessment

Manage Tutor led discussion

Lecture

Course Resources

Facilitate Group Project Course/Group Discussion

Enable Formal Peer discussion

Blog of learning experience

Recognise Informal peer discussion

Personal Blog


Thank you for

your time

- and patience

[email protected]

www.staffs.ac.uk/COSE/cosenew/reportsandpapers.html


Sources used

Stiles M. J., Embedding E-learning in a Higher Education Institution, in "Virtuality and Education. A Reader.", eds Hoang Nguyen, T. and Preston, D.S., Rodopi, 2006Read B., Archer L. and Leathwood C, Challenging Cultures? Student Conceptions of ‘Belonging’ and ‘Isolation’ at a Post-1992 University, Studies in Higher Education Vol 28 (3), 2003, pp 261 - 277 Ahmed P.K., Benchmarking innovation best practice, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol 5 (1), Number 1, 1998, pp. 45-58Martins E.C. and Terblanche F., Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity and innovation, European Journal of Innovation Management Vol 6 (1) 2003 pp. 64-74Luck J., Jones D., McConachie J., & Danaher P. A. Challenging enterprises and subcultures: Interrogating ‘best practice’ in Central Queensland University’s course management systems. Paper presented at the Teaching and Learning Showcase, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Qld. (2004, February 18)Allen J. P., Information systems as technological innovation, Information Technology & People, Vol 13(3) pp 210 – 221, 2000Hornsby J. S., Kuratko D. F., Montagno R. V., Naffziger D. W., Implement Entrepreneurial Thinking in Established Organizations, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol 58, 1993Larsen, M.H. and Klischewski, R., Process ownership challenges in IT-enabled transformation of interorganizational business processes, Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004, pp 11-.Marquardt M. J., Building the Learning Organization: A Systems Approach to Quantum Improvement, McGraw-Hill, 1996Lam, A. "Organizational Innovation" In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, ed. Fagerberg J., Mowery D. C., and Nelson R. R., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.Carney, D., Anderson W., and Place P., Topics in Interoperability: Concepts of Ownership and Their Significance in Systems of Systems, Integration of Software-Intensive Systems Initiative Carnegie Mellon University, 2005West, M.A., Farr, J.L., "Innovation at work", in West, M.A., Farr, J.L. (Eds),Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies, Wiley, Chichester, pp.3-13, 1990Quinn J. B., "Managing Innovation: Controlled Chaos" Harvard Business Review, May-June 1985, pp. 73-84Mintzberg, H.: The Structuring of Organization, Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall 1979Schlenker, S. “IDMA Focuses on Data Ownership.” The Data Administration Newsletter. http://www.tdan.com/i025ht04.htm (2003).Swan J, Scarborough, H and Robertson M, The Construction of “Communities of Practice” in the Management of Innovation, Management Learning, Vol 33(4): 477-496, 2002Stiles M. J., Death of the VLE? – A challenge to a new orthodoxy, Serials (In Press)

Documents

TENCompetence Open Workshop GMEX Jan 2007 Control freaks in a sharing world - a bit of a dilemma? Prof Mark Stiles Head of Learning Development & Innovation