copyright © 2003 accenture. all rights reserved. accenture, its logo, and accenture innovation...

Copyright © 2003 Accenture. All rights reserved. Accenture, its logo, and Accenture Innovation Delivered are trademarks of Accenture.

Portal Trends in Higher EducationCopyright Bradley G. Englert, 2003. This work is the intellectual property of the author. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the author. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the author.

Brad Englert, Partner, Accenture

February 19, 2003

© Accenture 2003. All Rights Reserved. 2

Research Approach2

Key Findings: Evolutionary3

Background & Objectives of the Research1

Key Findings: Improve Service4

Key Findings: Usage7

Key Findings: Student Centric5

Summary8

Key Findings: Technology Led6

Questions9

Agenda


Higher Education's Use of the Internet

• Universities have been developing internet presence since the early 90’s

• Today, many universities are using the internet to:– Build awareness of the university

– Attract students, staff and visitors

– Offer teaching and learning services

– Provide all university stakeholders with fast, efficient access to information and services

– Build a university community

– Connect with external partners

• Many of the largest universities are offering

services via campus-wide portals

Background & Objectives of the Research


Objectives of the Research

• Accenture commissioned this research to answer the following questions:

– How far have universities in key countries progressed in the development of their portals?

• What are their priorities going forward?

– What are the user aspirations regarding university portals?

• How well are these aspirations being met?



Goals of the Portal Research

• Gain insight into current status and future development

– Assess how widespread and well-developed portals have become

– Determine university strategies, investment priorities, and challenges for future portal development

– Understand the needs and preference of end user groups



Research Approach2






Summary8


Questions9

Agenda


Research Approach

• Group 1: Executive Interviews– 47 executives including CIO, CTO, VP of IT, other University Executives,

Directors of Web Services, IT/Other

– Largest institutions based on enrollment

– Six target countries

– Conducted by a third party

Research Approach

United States14

Italy6

Australia8

Canada8

UK7

Singapore4


Research Approach

• Group 2: Focus Groups – A series of focus groups in the US, Italy and Australia, including 2 Student and 1

Faculty group per country

– Conducted by a third party

Research Approach

United States Italy

Australia


Definition of a Portal

• All respondents were provided with the Accenture definition of a portal during the preamble to the interview– Gateway that provides a single point of entry to information and tools

– Web-based aggregation point

– Targeted user groups

– “My” homepage

– Easy

– Accessible from anywhere, anytime

• Not all web-sites are portals

Research Approach


Research Approach2






Summary8


Questions9

Agenda


How Important is a Portal?

Almost three-quarters of the executives interviewed considered portal development “important” to their universities’ strategic objectives

How Important is Portal Development to Universities

Very important45%

Important29%

Fairly/somewhat important

22%

Not important4%

Totally unimportant0%

Key Findings: Evolutionary


Current Status of Portal Development

Virtually all of the institutions (96%) are either planning, developing, or have already implemented a portal

Stage of Portal Development

Portal in place34%

Developing portal39%

Not planning portal 4%

Planning/intending portal

23%

16

18

11

2



Future Status of Universities with No Portals

31 of the 47 universities did not have portals

Single website

58%

Multiple websites32%

Current Web Presence of the 31 Universities Without Portals

Unclear10%


6 mos–1 yr34%

1 yr–18 mos

17%

< 6 mos17%

2 yrs +

17%

18 mos–2 yrs

15%

Expected Timeframe to Implementation

29 of the 31 universities that do not have portals are planning or developing one


Meeting Portal Objectives

• Most universities have started development

• Most have a long way to go to meet their objectives

– 60% said that their objectives had evolved significantly in the past 2 years

• Higher expectations

• Improved technology

• Four universities met their objectives



Research Approach2






Summary8


Questions9

Agenda


Key Reasons for Portal Development

Improved service delivery, not cost savings, is the primary reason behind portal development.

Top Reasons For Portal Development (Multiple Responses)

0 5 10 15 20 25Maintain alumni network

Attract business / research partnersOffer distance / flexible learning

Engage / connect / build communityEnhance university image / raise profile

Attract studentsImprove administration efficiency

Offer personalized / customized / targeted serviceImprove service to students/staff

Integrate / streamline information & services

Number of universities

2319

1412

9

854

3

2

Key Findings: Improve Service


Challenges in Portal Development

Main Challenges in Portal Development (Multiple Responses)

Lack of internal expertise / resources

Interoperability / legacy systems / integration of decentralized sites

Obtaining buy-in from all stakeholders / satisfy diversified needs

4

4

4

5

5

15

17

20

0 5 10 15 20

Other technology problems

Security issues / protection of student data

Time / speed

Over-ambitious goals

Cost / budgetary issues

Number of responses

Key Findings: Improve Service


Research Approach2






Summary8


Questions9

Agenda


Distinct Services for User Groups

Principle User Groups to Whom Portals Offers/ Will Offer Distinct Services – All Universities

Current S

tuden

ts

Teach

ing fa

culty

Admini

strat

ors

Libra

ry/B

ooks

tore

IT st

aff

Prosp

ectiv

e stu

dent

s

Alumni

grou

ps

Deans

/Hea

ds o

f Dep

ts

Secon

dary

scho

ols/

colle

ges

Busine

ss P

artn

ers/

rese

arch

par

tner

Presid

ent/V

P

Nu

mb

er o

f re

spo

nd

ents

0

10

20

30

40

50

PlannedCurrent

Key Findings: Student Centric

Current students is the highest priority user group for all universities


Services and Benefits for Students

• Services– Universities currently have a wide range of student-oriented services

• View curriculum alternatives

• Access own records (exam grades etc)

• Access online library resources/databases

– Have further to go in offering transactional services

• Expected benefits– Highest rated was improved services for current students

• Expectation gap– Wide-range of services provided by universities may not all be wanted by

students

– Students want services that are:

• Easy to use, reliable and fast

• Customizable

• Transactional



Services and Benefits for Faculty

• Services

– Access for faculty to provide content to students online

• Nearly all universities already allow faculty to post

course materials online; only some use this

– Faculty conducting online personal tutor sessions

• Expected benefits – Provide better services to students

– Make life easier for faculty; improve their experience

• Expectation gap– Services for faculty actually aimed at making students’ lives easier

– Faculty considered service providers – not users

– Causing more work for faculty

– Problems with ownership and quality control of content posted on line



Services and Benefits for Administration

• Services

– Access information such as:

• University policies/procedures

• Key grading/enrollment statistics online

• Student recruiting Information

• Expected benefits– First and foremost, help staff improve services to

students and faculty

– Reduce administrative cost

– Improve staff environment



Research Approach2






Summary8


Questions9

Agenda


Heavy IT Involvement

• Portals are being technology led rather than user led – Looking for quick hits that do not necessarily address user needs

• Decision Making Stage– Wide range of stakeholders, although heavy focus on IT staff and the

leadership

• Development Stage– Wide consultation among many stakeholder groups – degree and nature of

consultation varies by country

– In the US, most consulted with teaching faculty and all consulted with current students

• Implementation Stage– Overwhelmingly the responsibility of the IT staff / IT faculty or the web editor

• Heavy IT involvement may be one reason for the disconnect in fulfilling user needs

Key Findings: Tech Led


Implementation and Funding

• How will universities develop their portal?– 25% believe they are capable of completely ‘going it alone’

– Most universities are using a combination of:

• in-house resources

• buying in a number of packages

• tailoring package to meet their own requirements

– Half would consider outsourcing or using an external contractor for portal development

• How will universities fund their portal? – 60% will increase budgets

– 25% budget remain as-is

– 15% reduce budgets

Key Findings: Tech Led


Research Approach2






Summary8


Questions9

Agenda


What Makes Portal Development Successful?

Has currentlyDeveloping

Intended/planning

Base: All respondents

Key Success Factors in Developing a University Portal

Promote / communicateadvantages

Range of services

Technical infrastructure/IT

Centralize / standardize/integrate

Speed / ease of use

Consult / plan / needs analysis

Obtain buy-in

2

1

1

6

9

7

1

4

3

6

4

6

9

2

1

1

2

1

2

8

0 5 10 15 20 25

No of respondents

Stage of portal development

Key Findings: Usage


Use vs. Expected Use of Online Services

Expectations Regarding Use of Online Services

2

0 5 10 15 20

Don't know

4No expectations

9Exceeded

15Not reached

16Reached

No. of respondents

8 out of 14 (57%) respondents in the US believe their expectations have not been met

US universities seem most dissatisfied with progress, while results were fairly mixed across the other countries. Universities in the UK, Canada and Italy were most satisfied with progress

Key Findings: Usage


Strategies for Encouraging Greater Use of Services Via the Website/Portal

• 50% of the universities have already, or are planning, to make some services available exclusively online

– “We used to mail paper grades, now its exclusively online. Next Autumn the timetable [class schedule] will be exclusively online”

• Over a third talked about the need to improve and/or increase the range of services available online

– “The future is in moving all the bureaucratic activities of the university exclusively online”

Key Findings: Usage


Strategies for Encouraging Greater Use of Services Via the Website/Portal

• 25% based strategy around promotion/marketing activity

– “We are making the value clear – not through mandatory services but through effective marketing of the benefits of the portal”

• 15% prepared to offer discounts as incentives for undertaking activities online, though some universities conceded that this would be hard to do in practice

– “We give discounts and priority access, for example, requesting or demanding difficult documents is cheaper online.”

Key Findings: Usage


Research Approach2






Summary8


Questions9

Agenda


Summary

Five major themes emerged from the research:1. Portal development is evolutionary rather than revolutionary

2. Improved service delivery, not cost savings, is the primary driver behind portal development

3. University portals’ strong emphasis on serving current students better may risk under serving other key user groups

4. In the main, portals are being technology led rather than user led, with resources first directed to what is obvious and easy-to-do

5. Improving usage among key user groups will be accomplished through multiple approaches

• Students will use portals if they work well

• Faculty will require services that are relevant to them

• “One size does not fit all”

Summary


?

Bradley G. EnglertPartner

Tel: (512) 732-5554Fax: (512)732-5845

bradley.g.englert @ accenture.com

copyright © 2003 accenture. all rights reserved. accenture, its logo, and accenture innovation...

Documents