1. Managing the Process of Organizational Change in E-learning Development at Institutional Level
Guang YANG
London Knowledge Lab
Institute of Education
15 October 2009
Institute of Education
University of London
20 Bedford Way
London WC1H 0AL
Web

2. Managing the Process of Organizational Change in E-learning Development at Institutional Level
Background
Why?
What?
How?

3. Changes in British higher education
Changes in government spending :
Dearing Committee in 1997 claimed that public funding for institutions has fallen by around 25% per student since 1979, putting considerable pressures on universities and colleges (DfEE 1998).
Since the Dearing report published in 1997, public funding for higher education has also fallen significantly behind investment in other educational sectors (schools, FE etc) from 2001 to 2005 (Watson 2007).

4. Changes in British higher education
Changes in government aims for higher education.
Changes in student numbers and student diversity are also significant, the UK student numbers in higher education in 2004 tripled the numbers in 1979 from 750,000 to 2.25 million (Watson 2007) p.39).
Changes in the British higher education system.
The structures of courses have changed.

5. VLE—Blended learning
A UCISA survey (Jenkins et al. 2005) has reported a 7% uptake of VLEs in 1997 compared to a 97% uptake by 2005.
It is argued that there are institutions which are struggling with addressing the central issue and ways to implement e-learning effectively, strategically (Goodfellow and Lea 2007).

6. E-learning is not effective in isolation
E-learning is not effective in isolation. New ways of learning require new forms of institutional management (Elton 1999)
Many approaches that deployed e-learning have failed or wasted large amounts of money in the recent past years because universities were taken by surprise about the low conversion rate of potential markets into actual registrations and the requirements of higher levels of resources, and hence were unable to change internally sufficiently fast and well (Salmon 2005).
E-learning creates further pointed tensions in these political processes due to the pace of change, the investments required, and the need for involvement of more staff and stakeholders (Whitworth 2005).

7. Aims and Objectives
To examine the process of organizational change linked to the deployment of e-learning systems in a range of higher education (HE) institutes in UK
Focusing on the experiences and perceptions of senior managers, staff and students
The results could offer a framework to other higher education institutions to design and manage effective organizational infrastructures attempting to meet their own needs in e-learning development in the future.

8. Research Questions:
1.What are the conditions for implementing e-learning systems to be successful in HE institutions?
2.What lessons can be learned that will assist other institutions design and manage effective organizational infrastructures in e-learning development?

9. Sub-questions:
To identify the cultural/organisational change model is being adopted by the University and the process of why and how a technology for learning and teaching is selected and implemented at institutional level, and how this relates to the level and quality of e-learning implementation.
To identify the relationship between the process of departmental planning for learning and teaching and the use of new technologies.
To identify the policy and management demands and support for staff relating to teaching and learning, and their role in the changes that take place throughout the process of deployment of new technologies.
To identify the role of strategic developments of teaching and learning and policy have had on the change process.

10. Culture Components Role culture Power culture Achievement culture
Bureaucratic; line management; hierarchical decision-making; clear division and demarcation of labor and strata of decision-making and responsibility; formal and inflexible operational procedures; detailed job specifications; close monitoring of performance; concern for task achievement; propensity for stagnation; limited adaptability to change
Power culture
Centralized control; significance of leaders; limited collegiality; high significance of micro-politics; fluid, negotiated power; competitive; frequent low morale amongst non-leaders; blame culture for failure; strong and flexible
Achievement culture
Emphasis on results, standards, outcomes; collaborative and collegial; task focused with task groups and teams; much autonomy of teams; using power to coordinate tasks in order to achieve results; extended and flexible use of expertise; significance of project leaders; high capability to change
Support culture
Person centered; formal and informal support services; consensus based; positional power replaced by the authority of expertise; individual concerns over-ride organizational concerns; personal empowerment; limited constraints on staff; resource rich
Figure 2.2 (Harrison 1998)

11. Mintzberg’s view of an organization
Strategic management
Middle management
The ‘production’ Teams
Technostructure Supporting service
(Mintzberg,1983)

12. Models of Change: (Laurillard 2002)
A Fordist model of change—favour industrialization
“The Ecological”—learning organization model of change
The complete process for organizational learning can then be characterised as a succession of activities:
Expending knowledge
Sharing
Innovating
Evaluating
Implementing
Validating
(Laurillard 2002)

13. E-learning Implementation
Top-down Vs Bottom-up
By policy and strategy development By pilot and individual funded
initiated by member of upper project;
Management;
Not consultative and inclusive Creates some excellence and
enough areas of inactivity

14. Methodological approach

15. Participants
Four Cases: two research-oriented universities &two new universities
Interviewees:
The senior managers for teaching and learning
Managers of the learning technology group
Learning Technology Advisers, IS support staff
Lecturers

16. First Case: New university--A
Factors that appear to be affecting the implementation at departmental level from lecturer’s point of view:
availability of the resources,
staff training and extra staff time,
e-learning specialist and moderator,
staff involvement and motivation,
policy and strategy

17. Case 1:New university University culture
University top management commitment
Policy+Strategy
(Departmental level) Funding + Management commitment and support
Research Human resources Departmental strategy and planning
Positive or negative impacts
Staff involvement and motivation

18. Case 1: Different images from the manager
Policy and strategy document ---came out last year
“going in a successful way”
Most Challenging:
“Not money, not time, it is understanding where people were or are”

19. Case 2: Old university—B&C
Factors that appear to be affecting the implementation at departmental level from lecturer’s point of view:
E-learning technologists
Departmental management commitment
Students needs

20. Case 3:Old university--C
Decentralized structure—funding allocation, staff allocation.
Grass root change modes
Open resources
Lecturer’s perception of technology—tutorial system

21. Preliminary findings
Whether a top-down, bottom-up approach or a combined approach would yield better results for adopting an e-learning strategy depending on the institutional culture.
Conversational, not confrontational
Middle management: Agent of Change---Managing change or change manager?
E-learning Champions
Mixed ICT Support structure

22. Thank you!