1 Managing an “e-University” Critical Success Factors Costing, Planning, Pricing Professor Paul Bacsich Dipoli, 23 March 2004

2 A global problem  Most commercial e-universities have failed, downsized or overspent their development funds  Many public sector e-universities have also had problems  These have affected both single-institution and consortia models  The problem is neither purely a dot-com issue or confined to the “English” world  So what is going wrong? And how can it be put right?

3 My background  Worked on telewriting and videotex for learning in UKOU in  Analytic work for EU and EADTU in 1980s  Early CMC work from 1984: Australia and UK  Introduced FirstClass to UKOU in 1991 (JANUS project under EU FP3 “DELTA”)  Set up Virtual Campus Sheffield Hallam U: 1997  Consultancy work for “e-U” then UKeU: 2000 on  Analytic work on “Virtual U’s” - UNESCO: 2001

4 National eLearning rhetoric  “A successful knowledge-based economy depends upon availability of skill sets”  “The government is determined to deliver step change in higher education outcomes”  Growing competition for in-demand skills  In-country provision important for recruitment and retention  “Growing use of technology-based learning”

5 e-universities in UK  Open University (UK)  University for Industry (UK)  UK eUniversities Worldwide Limited (UKeU)  NHS University  Russell Group consortia: WUN and U21  Post-92 universities – Virtual Campuses  Scotland: Interactive University

6 UK: Oxbridge and Russell Group  World University Network (WUN)  Sheffield, Leeds, York, Bristol, Manchester, Southampton – plus US partners  Universitas21:  Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Nottingham  Cambridge-OU alliance (UKeU pilot)  Oxford with Stanford, Princeton, etc

7 UK: New Universities  Sheffield Hallam  early Virtual Campus  Robert Gordons (Scotland)  early Virtual Campus  Ulster (N Ireland)  later Virtual Campus  Glamorgan (Wales)  Middlesex (London)  Global University Alliance: Derby+Glamorgan plus others non-UK hosted by NextEd

8 And around the world  Australia: Deakin, Edith Cowan, USQ…  Canada: Athabasca, [OLA]….  Germany: FernUniversitat  Dutch Ou, Dutch Digital U  Finnish VU  Swiss VU  India: IGNU  Mexico: Tec de Monterrey  China: CCRTVU

9 Types of e-university  Green fields/new build – e.g. UOC, TechBC  Consortium  “Orange skin” – Virtual Campus  Those run or serviced by non-HE organisations

10 Purposes behind e-universities  Government initiative:  national or regional or local  International initiatives:  AVU; ITU; UN VU (environment)  Business opportunity:  Publisher  Broadcaster  IT company

11 Critical Success Factors for e-Uni Consortia  Binding energy  Organisational homogeneity or managed diversity  Stratification  Linguistic homogeneity Bacsich, for UNESCO

12 Other issues  Many national responses still confused  Increasing consensus on e-pedagogy but big national differences on how seriously cost-effectiveness issues are addressed  Truly international consortia do not yet exist  E-learning still growing through DL But many institutions slow to change

13 The problems  Few big successes:  Phoenix Online, UMUC  Many failures or problems  US: WGU, Fathom, NYUOnline, US OU  Even Cardean much shrunken  Canada: TechBC, OLA  Dutch Ou >> Dutch Digital U  Scottish Knowledge >> Interactive University  England: HEFCE statement on downsizing UKeU, current adverse comment on Ufi cost-benefits

14 Reasons for failure of e-Unis  They - or their funders? - did not understand the existing CSF literature - likely  New CSFs are emerging - also likely  Bad luck - not likely for all  Bad management - likely for some

15 Commercial e-Unis need to learn that...  Market-led courses are essential, even though market research is hard  Minimal “Time to market” is crucial  “Quality” not a differentiator; price is; brand may be  MLE functionality is not now a differentiator  It is not really an English-speaking world in HE  It is not even a 56 kbps world  E-Unis must be both a university and a company, but few can bring that off

16 Public-sector e-Unis need to learn that...  There still must be a business model even if not commercial; funds do not just appear!  Flow of funds to partner unis is always an issue  Open source is part of an answer not the answer (e.g. Malaysia)  Consortia are hard to manage, especially large ones (earlier CSFs are still valid)  While a single MLE may not be acceptable in a consortium, interoperability is not yet “there”

17 Hard data on demand  “Hard data on student demand for distance learning in [overseas] countries is difficult, if not impossible, to locate” (Fielden, 2000, for HEFCE)  Commission your own research, do not share  Do not be a slave to market research. A lesson of the dot.coms: products can create markets  “Brand” is elusive, time-lagged and subject- dependent  What would you do if you found 1,000 students?  Do not assume your (uni’s) pedagogy will transfer

18 Competitor research  Whatever the size of the market, it will usually be contested - there are few unoccupied niches  Attractive subjects, eg MBAs, are over-contested  Focus on student preferences, views, including value proposition to them  Make sure you compare like with like - what is an MSc? An MBA??  Try to track non-sales (dept store analogy)  global pricing is rare; global syllabi also