|
Managed Learning Environments, joined up systems and the problems of organisational change Summary This study aims to explore some of the inherent tensions in large complex educational organisations involved in implementing Managed Learning Environments (MLEs). This is because the scaling-up and integration required for MLE development in FE and HE necessarily throw these tensions into relief - in a sector where there are very few explicit approaches to, or models for, the management of organisational change. We therefore need to explore the effectiveness of different strategies within education to deal with potential difficulties such as those outlined below as an essential part of developing joined-up systems:
This report suggests that there are 4 different approaches for connecting MLE development with other aspects of FE and HE within organisations:
Whilst the many stakeholders within different educational institutions are likely to have a variety of motivations, it is suggested that there are two basic articulations of MLE development at the institutional level. One sees it as relatively uncontroversial, technical and an ad-hoc addition to other strategic initiatives. Problems with implementation are most likely to be ascribed to a generalised need for a ‘culture shift’ because of the current lack of experience of ICT rather than to specific institutional issues about organisational/educational change or the integrative demands of scaling-up. This is in contrast to an understanding of MLE development that sees it as necessarily challenging to existing pedagogic and organisational assumptions and which therefore implements an MLE as an integral element in the wider management of change towards improved educational and organisational provision. These two positions are outlined below.
The model for what a MLE is can itself be a key mechanism in both these approaches. Some form of web-based portal for students (and staff) is increasingly becoming the ‘standard’ mode of joining up the previously separate components of student data system, VLE and learning support services via an additional connecting layer. Such an approach is extremely pragmatic – organisationally, technically and financially. It is, however, a very limited model for educational or organisational change, since key issues of content and structure can easily become marginalised in decision-making processes, or be treated as additional rather than central to MLE development. It might even be suggested that the portal approach is taking hold precisely because it enables institutions to avoid difficult questions about how they organise themselves. JISC has described an MLE as follows:
Using such a definition, educational institutions need to re-think their educational and organisational processes as an essential part of MLE development and second, make student-centred approaches central to that development. This study concludes that if the development of MLEs is to be seen as more than a technical adaptation of existing sub-systems, then aspects of its implementation and embedding in FE and HE institutions should include:
It finishes with some draft guidelines for projects on managing change in MLE development processes. * JISC Managed Learning Environments: Call for proposals (JISC Circular 07/99) Introduction HE and FE institutions across the UK are currently at different stages in embedding information systems and technology into learning and teaching, and administrative processes. There is already an awareness of some of the difficulties of introducing ICT into tertiary education, and of scaling-up institutional/organisational/technical change and implementing good ‘joined-up’ systems[1]. There is also already some useful literature[2] analysing attempts to embed information technologies into educational institutions which list potential barriers to change and offer possible models for effective implementation. Collis and Moonen summarise this as a (non-linear,often convoluted) three stage process: pre-initiation and initiation, implementation and institutionalisation. Some of the difficulties for effective integration of ICT and joining up of systems in this process can be listed as follows:
Here, rather than merely identifying barriers to institutional change, the aim is to unravel the inherent tensions in large complex organisations (some perhaps particular to the characteristic shape and history of education). It is proposed that the requirements of scaling-up and integration necessarily throw these into relief; and that we therefore need to explore the effectiveness of different strategies within HE and FE to negotiate and resolve these tensions as an essential part of developing joined-up systems. This means having models for the management of organisational change which enable institutions and/or projects within them to:
Approaches to MLE development There are at least 4 different approaches for connecting an MLE development with other aspects of FE and HE within institutions:
Whilst the many stakeholders within different educational institutions are likely to have a variety of motivations, it is suggested that there are two basic articulations of MLE development at the institutional level[3]. One sees it as relatively uncontroversial, technical and an ad-hoc addition to other strategic initiatives. The problem is articulated, for example, as “systems which don’t talk to each other” and where solutions are “common-sense” and aimed at “integration without to much change.” Difficulties in implementation are most likely to be ascribed to a generalised need for a culture shift because of the current lack of experience of ICT rather than to specific institutional issues about organisational/educational change or the integrative demands of scaling-up. This is in contrast to an understanding of MLE development that sees it as necessarily challenging to existing pedagogic and organisational assumptions and which therefore implements an MLE as an integral element in the wider management of change towards improved educational and organisational provision. Here, by contrast, MLE development is perceived not just in its own terms but also as a useful vehicle for enabling pedagogic and organisational change, for example to “make people look at how they do things” and “forcing debate” , or offering the potential to provide “an unthreatening framework in which integration can happen.”[4] These two positions are outlined below.
Without an explicit model of change management as part of MLE and scaling-up systems development, the overlap of these different implicit understandings produces its own frustrations and compromises:
In these cases, decision-making about ‘difficult’ organisational and educational issues for MLE development happens often by default, not in the ‘best’ location organisationally, consistently with each other, or so as to engage stakeholders in relevant debate and action. Where data owners and/or budget-holders as the key decision-makers for their particular processes (often justified because of the centrality of data protection and security issues) there is likely to be a lack of clarity or coherence in where and how strategic organisational and educational changes are made. MLE Models The model for what a MLE is can itself be a key mechanism for enabling scaling-up and integration of systems, especially because explicit models of change management were not initially in place. Despite differences, current MLE models tend to have the underlying similarity of joining up the previously separate components of student data system, VLE and learning support services via an additional ‘connecting layer’ – some form web-based portal for students (and staff). This has meant
Such an approach is extremely pragmatic – organisationally, technically and financially because, I suggest, it responds to current management practices in educational institutions. It is, however, a very limited model for educational or organisational change, since key issues of content and structure can easily become marginalised in decision-making processes, or be treated as additive rather than central to MLE development.It might even be suggested that the portal approach is taking hold precisely because it enables institutions to avoid difficult questions about how they organise themselves.But it is not the only model for MLE development:
Function and process relationships How an MLE is visualised also relates to how functions within education institutions are currently organised and on the degree of re-thinking what categories of activity should go together and their relationships. Library and learning support services are themselves potential models for MLE development, for example, albeit at a smaller scale. These areas already integrate information, educational resources and learning support as well as linking administrative and academic services (for example, in student registration and book-lending processes). Yet while information and learning support services are being incorporated into portal interfaces they can often be viewed as relatively peripheral - either as stakeholders or as examples of good practice from which lessons could be learnt. This may reflect their educational and organisational ‘location’ within university hierarchies more generally, or the effectiveness of their pre-existing integration “already often ‘complete, well sorted and fairly closed systems (which are) therefore difficult to break into except for grabbing little bits of data.” [7] JISC has described an MLE as follows:
Using such a definition, educational institutions need to re-think their educational and organisational processes as an essential part of MLE development and second, make student-centred approaches central to that development. And re-designing university processes from the student perspective cannot be done piecemeal. What are MLES for ? FE and HE institutions are increasingly aware of the merits of MLE development and systems integration as some combination of the three things: improvement of the student experience, improved data accuracy/sharing and increased efficiencies in academic and administrative processes. This is, in turn, motivated by an awareness of the external context of widening participation and of an increasing competitive market for students. However, institutional interpretations of these objectives are often not transparent, obvious or non-controversial. Improving the student experience, for example, may links to strategic aims such as a widening participation agenda, which may not be an objective shared by all staff. Implications are also not always well thought through, for example in how staff may perceive their jobs as being altered or downgraded by MLE development. UK universities and colleges are already going some degree of re-structuring, often with the threat or reality of staff cuts. This can have ramifications on MLE development– both where it has been seen as potentially part of this threat and where it has been articulated and accepted ‘popularly’ as an opportunity to improve an institutions location in the ‘market'. Yet institutions and MLE projects are reacting to these difficulties as they occur rather than trying to predict and plan for them in advance. Intended Outcomes It is generally assumed that the key successful outcome for an MLE is on-line access for students (and secondarily staff) to relevant university information and services, available anywhere, anytime. The word used most frequently is ‘seamless’ – that is, access to resources unaffected by their underlying existing functional or conventional divisions. There are two problems here. ‘Seamless’ access tends to be focused at the point of contact between student and MLE – the portal – rather than, for example, as the ‘seamless’ integration of the MLE into the everyday workings of the institution, or as part of a wider set of outcomes concerned with improving teaching and learning practices, organisational performance and collaborative working. What such as outcome as easy on-line access for students really means, how it might be implemented and how evaluated are often not well articulated. There is not necessarily much clarity and consistency over what resources should be provided, on how the quality of content or design is to be monitored, about how accessibility is defined (by whom and for whom) and about how to judge ‘success’ or set performance targets Pre-initiation, initiation, implementation and institutionalisation processes All MLE development should combine two processes; the design and implementation of appropriate secure and robust technical systems and the enabling of effective educational and organisational integration towards an improved student experience. Of course, rather than being automatically or necessarily aligned, these two processes often operate with varying degrees of separation and lack of integration. Thus, at the pre-initiation and initiation phases there will already be very different concerns across stakeholders in an institution which can be outlined as follows:
Each of these approaches has different implications for organisational and educational change, for processes of implementation and for evaluation criteria and methods. At the pre-initiation phase, it is clear that problems with existing sub-systems such as out-dated Student Data Systems (SDS) can be a strong motivating factor in generating both top-down commitment and grass-roots interest and support. Similarly, existing initiatives (particularly in relation to VLE development) had generated both valuable local expertise and recognition of the need for, and issues involved in, scaling-up to an integrated MLE. The main focus of initial implementation phases, then, is often that of solving a ‘local’ problem or extending a ‘local’ initiative. Again, it is worth noting that such a reactive approach may make it more difficult to re-think educational and organisational processes:
Activities explicitly in support of educational and organisational change tend to be more recent, piecemeal and across multiple fronts, of which six related to initial implementation are identified below.[10] 'Sub-processes’ development Within the portal approach to MLE development described here, sub-processes can be dealt with a degree of relative autonomy. This has meant considerable variations in degree and type of change visualised as well as its sequencing. Variations are influenced by the context of existing systems, organisational frameworks and strategic processes of decision-making and authority. Management of this process has often had to combine forward planning with reaction to changing circumstances. Effective development of sub-processes and their relationships then, needs mechanisms for monitoring and controlling the quality and consistency of choices across technical, educational and organisational criteria. Involving staff There are a variety of methods for involving administrative and academic staff, across - but not necessarily articulated as - dissemination for awareness (information), dissemination for shared decision-making (consultation) and dissemination for action (involvement). There seemed to be frustration where dissemination for information is generally perceived as being separate from actual decision-making structures and processes; it was here that lack of staff interest is most keenly felt. The issue, then, is not what type of staff involvement is best, but a clarity about what internal dissemination is for, or how to judge its effectiveness. Simultaneously the opportunity for the MLE project to open up debate about administrative, academic and integration issues seemed often to be welcomed by staff. Rather than focusing on information and training about the MLE, this involves putting it in a wider context, and encouraging debate. Involving students The level of student involvement in MLE development has been relatively poor to date. Only one had student representation on the steering committee. Students had been involved to some extent in testing where prototype interfaces had been designed or as part of user requirement surveys. And in some cases, further evaluation of student experiences were planned, both built on existing feedback processes (such as student satisfaction surveys) and in addition to these. This seems to reflect wider institutional tendencies in HE to be committed to the idea of student-focused development, but with a piecemeal approach to implementation rather than a strategic consideration of how students should be involved as part of a student-centred approach. Influencing policy and direction MLE project development is also a means to raise awareness of - and influencing - potential educational and organisational changes. These wider goals (for example in improving learning and teaching or developing student-centred processes) thus explicitly concern using the MLE to provide leverage within an institution – and are as often aimed upwards, towards members of senior management as down to the ‘grassroots’:
Quick wins and longer term goals The successful implementation of an MLE involves the defining of both ‘quick wins’ and longer term goals. Such quick wins[12] tend to be visualised by the technical teams providing them as simply demonstrators of what an integrated on-line system can do; they can however, be misunderstood as inherent parts of the MLE. They thus illustrate the on-going difficulties in who and how choices are made about the structure, and design of, and access to, interface and middleware. Without an explicit process for selecting quick wins within short and longer term objectives (using techniques such as risk analysis), MLEs may become merely the additive accumulation of reactive and piecemeal solutions, based merely on what is doable rather than on what is preferable MLE developers roles The development team for an MLE requires specialist technical knowledge but must also understand educational and institutional processes and contexts. Work to date seems to suggest that developers need to be seen as independent from any particular department or power ‘bloc’, but must also have access to high level decision-making. MLE projects also often have to sit - sometimes uncomfortably - between management and ‘grassroots’. They usually need to be perceived as independent ‘outsiders’ but also to have institution-wide authority and credibility. Their role seems to work best when their technical expertise is recognised and valued, but without appearing too ‘techie’.[13] Dealing with these issues is time-consuming and not always easy to manage effectively. Towards process improvement, student-centred approaches If the development of MLEs is to be seen as more than a technical adaptation of existing sub-systems, then its strategy and implementation should include:
The trend to portal-based MLEs is one pragmatic and flexible approach to the scaling-up and integration of systems required by MLE development, but it is not the only possible model – and where it is applied it should not be a substitute for a process improvement, student-centred approach. What is therefore also urgently needed, is a clearer understanding of what level and kind of connected organisational and educational changes HE and FE institutions are wanting and the implications both for MLE development and for the management of institutional change.
This report has suggested that the effective management of organisational change in relation to MLE development requires institutions and development teams to engage with at least some aspects of the comprehensive – process improvement oriented[14] - approach. This is because the requirements of scaling-up and integration demanded by an MLE necessarily throw into relief the inherent tensions in large complex organisations with different stakeholder perspectives. Some of these problems relate to tensions in organisational structures in general, others to the specificities of educational institutions and their recent histories; in particular a continuing belief in academic autonomy and its perceived undermining through restructuring and financial cuts. MLE strategy and implementation inevitably challenges existing pedagogic and organisational processes. As such MLEs are a vital opportunity to re-think current educational and administrative processes so as to improve both resource-effectiveness and the student experience. Guidelines for projects It has been suggested here that there are 2 basic paradigms for MLE development, one concerned with merely integrating existing systems and the other with rethinking educational and organisational processes (with different ‘weightings’ both between institutions and across different stakeholders.) While institutions and projects will probably be using both of these approaches at least implicitly, they often lack explicit strategies and tactics for supporting debate, re-thinking processes or resolving conflicts. The guidelines over-page therefore concentrate on supporting the comprehensive approach by offering some ideas for tackling difficulties. They are in draft form only and have not yet tested and evaluated by institutions or projects undertaking MLE development. They should be read together with other JISC briefing papers, in particular briefing paper No 16: Cultural Change (Richard Everett) and Summary briefing paper on issues for the development and implementation of Managed Learning Environments (Daxa Patel and Tom Franklin).[15] Using models for managing organisational change The Problem - how to:
By
Negotiating differences between local and strategic motivations/objectives The Problem - how to:
By
Bridging gaps between critique, policy and implementation processes The Problem - how to:
By
Building cross-functional and collaborative working in a culture based on autonomy and independence The Problem - how to:
By
Enabling long-term, constructive development and embedding within often reactive, adaptive and ‘just-in-time’ approaches to change The Problem - how to:
By
Finding mechanisms for prioritising student centred approaches within management and technical processes The Problem - how to:
By
Creating credibility and authority of projects ownership and validation of change processes The Problem - how to:
By
Overcoming inertia, reaching critical mass and aiming towards ‘MLE institutionalisation’ The Problem - how to:
By
References
[1]This report is based on a 3 month short study was commissioned by JCIEL in November 2001to examine barriers to organisational, cultural and educational change in joining-up systems. That study focused on 3 of the on-going institution-wide 07/99 MLE projects (2 joined-up systems for learners, 1 joined up systems for institutions) to explore how different stakeholders articulate their organisational processes and plan the move towards MLE integration. [2] See, for example Peter Ford et al (eds) Managing Change in Higher Education OUP 1996 and Betty Collis and Jef Moonen Flexible Learning in a Digital World: experiences and expectations Kogan Page 2001 [3] The original JCIEL funded short study, on which this paper is based, was undertaken via semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders at a senior level in three different institutions who ‘represented’ some of the different processes being joined-up in each institution. These were, in most cases, a pro-vice chancellor or equivalent, and heads of academic registry, information services, IT systems and/or learning development. In each case the MLE project manager was also interviewed. Questions were based on a simplified process improvement methodology where MLEs are seen as being made up of separate sub-processes, themselves supported by whole system processes for operationalising policy and for managing change. Interviews explores how different stakeholders articulated the process(es) they were involved in and how these were (or were not) being changed by MLE development as follows:
For interviewees see Appendix 1 and for questions see Appendix 2. [4]. All quotations are from interviews undertaken during the short study, or comments on the initial draft. [5] John Eyre, Project Manager, JCIEL funded Virtual Desk project, De Montfort University [6] Oleg Liber, Project Manager, Comantle project, University of Bangor [7]John Eyre, Project Manager, JCIEL funded Virtual Desk project, De Montfort University [8] JISC Managed Learning Environments: Call for proposals (JISC Circular 7/99) [9] Oleg Liber, Project Manager, Comantle project, University of Bangor [10] It should be noted that the 07/99 MLE projects studied were all in progress, that is, at early initiation and implementation stages. [11]Sandy Brittain, CoManTLE project, University of Bangor. Progress report for 27/06/2001 – 07/01/2002. [12] Quick wins undertaken by the projects studied included daily canteen menus on the MLE web-site and student access to previous exam papers which had already been converted into electronic form. [13] In addition, all the projects studied had problems with recruitment and retention of high quality contract staff. [14]Process improvement is one of the frameworks recommended by the JISC Information Strategies programme. The others are lifecycle planning and functional analysis. [15] Briefing paper 16: Cultural Change and Summary briefing paper on issues for development and implementation of Managed Learning Environments Appendix 1: Interviewees and other participants Sunderland (SMILE project) Gayle Haswell Project Officer Ian Neal Project Director Rob Stafford Plus2 Project Manager Andrew McDonald Director, Information Services Suzanne Robertson Director, Learning Development Writtle college (GIMIS) Nigel Kirby Project Manager Richard Head of Information Services Bob Edes Financial Director Bob de Havillan IT Systems De Montfort (Virtual Desk) John Eyre MLE Project Manager Stephen Baskerville Pro-Vice Chancellor (MLE Project Director) Kathryn Arnold Head of Library Services Carol Saunders Director of Educational Quality Enhancement Roy Adams Director of Information Services and Systems (ISAS) Comments on draft: Case Study Projects Bob Bell Pro Vice Chancellor, Sunderland Ian Cumbus Vice Principal, Writtle College Stuart Porteous Academic Registrar, Sunderland Eugene Critchlow Academic Registrar, De Montfort Julie Snelson MLE Project Manager, Bangor Associated Projects Sandy Britain CoManTLE Project, Bangor Oleg Liber CoManTLE Project. Bangor JISC Sarah Porter Programme Manager (JCIEL) Ann Hughes JISC Information Strategies and Corporate Information Systems Co-ordinator Alun Hughes Head of Learning and Information Services UHI (JCIEL committee member)
Appendix 2: Interview questions (with additional prompts in italics)
Report researched and written by: Jos Boys |
Title: MLEs, joined up systems, organisational change
Web page address: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=mle_related_joined
