1

E-tools for e-UniversitiesE-tools for e-Universities

Copyright, 2001 © Sheffield Hallam University

Professor Paul BacsichSheffield Hallam University

Great Britain

2

OverviewOverview

– E-Universities

– Procurement methodology

– Other methodologies, and comparisons

– Conclusions on theory

– What should you do in reality?

3

UK e-University/iesUK e-University/ies

• student-oriented

• quality offerings

• innovative

• flexible

• cost-effective

• disaggregated

• branding

4

UK e-UniversityUK e-UniversityStructure and marketStructure and market

• Holding company collectively owned by HEIs

• Joint venture with corporate world

• Market:– UK postgraduates and CPD

– corporate universities and businesses

– selected overseas markets – individuals, companies or governments

5

e-Universities - other e-Universities - other playersplayers• Open (Corporate) (e-)University

• (e-)University for Industry

• Scottish Knowledge, Sufi, UHI

• Cambridge and Oxford e-initiatives

• Cardean/UNext (UK)

• GUA/NextEd (UK)

• World Wide Universities Network (UK)

• Large new-university Virtual Campuses

6

Challenges to e-Challenges to e-UniversitiesUniversities• Learning System Standards

• Change Management

• Roles– of consortia

– of “conventional institutions”

– of funding agencies (HEFCE, JISC, etc)

• Cost structures?

• Procurement of systems

7

New Procurement New Procurement ParadigmParadigm• ““conversation” between customer conversation” between customer

and supplier business models, and supplier business models, iterating to BAFOiterating to BAFO

• Generalised features:Generalised features:– system information (such as architecture, system information (such as architecture,

scalability, standards)scalability, standards)

– user information (such as “industrial-strength” user information (such as “industrial-strength” reference sites)reference sites)

– “ “futures” on pedagogy and technologyfutures” on pedagogy and technology

8

Features 1 thru 6Features 1 thru 6

• Architecture (+ maths, chemistry…)

• Standards & interoperability

• Costs over life cycle

• Scalability (various aspects)

• User interface & compatibility

• Reference sites - relevant, big

9

Features 7 thru 12Features 7 thru 12

• Reliability - 5 9’s

• User empowerment

• Company size and stability

• Ease of support and training

• Ability to embed new technology (mobile etc)

• Ability to embed new pedagogy

10

Not yet relevant to large-Not yet relevant to large-scalescaleprocurement by end-usersprocurement by end-users

• EML? Too early to say

• Other European work (ERILE): not clear

• Landon (Canada) - too detailed

11

Wise thoughtsWise thoughts

• Collis: server independence

• Alexander et al (UTS): 8 criteria

• A’Herran (see later): should not depend on “surface” features because they are volatile

12

Hambrecht reportHambrecht report

• Validates group communication, even in e-training

• Contains 5 procurement criteria

• But they can be absorbed in mine

13

Hambrecht 5 criteriaHambrecht 5 criteria

• Leveraging on standards

• Scalable to any size enterprise

• Flexible technology

• Easy integration with client systems

• Media rich

14

Australian criteria: A’Herran @ Australian criteria: A’Herran @ JCUJCU• Administrators:

– Scalability, value for money, Integration

• Technicians:– Robustness, user base, tech support,

maintenance

• Course developers:– Customisability, flexibility, legacy materials

• Learners:– Consistency, accessibility, quality of design

15

Other relevant input to Other relevant input to procurement procurement methodologiesmethodologies

• Procurement: Richards - Selecting a Learning Management System you can live with, TMG Corporation, Vermont, 2000

• eArmyU 2-stage procurement

• And of course JISC SJ4

16

FunctionalityFunctionality• Increasing consensus now that group

communication is accepted; many exemplars bear this out

• JISC work on functionality: Britain & Liber, JTAP 41; FE MLE Group, ...

• e-University (PWC report and recent work)

• e-training: getting ahead of e-learning

• Hambrecht: e-training

17

Hambrecht conclusionsHambrecht conclusions• Higher retention of content through

personalised learning

• Improved collaboration and interactivity among students

• Live (synch) Web-based course delivery expected to surge

• Online training is less intimidating than instructor-led courses

• Trend toward IT certification growing rapidly

18

ConclusionsConclusions

• No answers to what is “best”

• Just a process to find your answer

• May not be wise to rush, just at present

• Professor Paul BacsichProfessor Paul Bacsichp.bacsich@shu.ac.ukp.bacsich@shu.ac.uk