Etools for eUniversities Professor Paul Bacsich Sheffield Hallam

E-tools for e-Universities Professor Paul Bacsich Sheffield Hallam University Great Britain 1 Copyright, 2001 © Sheffield Hallam University

Overview – E-Universities – Procurement methodology – Other methodologies, and comparisons – Conclusions on theory – What should you do in reality? 2

UK e-University/ies • student-oriented • quality offerings • innovative • flexible • cost-effective • disaggregated • branding 3

UK e-University Structure 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 4

e-Universities - other players • Open (Corporate) (e-)University • (e-)University for Industry • Scottish Knowledge, Sufi, UHI • Cambridge and Oxford e-initiatives • Cardean/UNext (UK) • GUA/Next. Ed (UK) • World Wide Universities Network (UK) • Large new-university Virtual Campuses 5

Challenges to e-Universities • Learning System Standards • Change Management • Roles – of consortia – of “conventional institutions” – of funding agencies (HEFCE, JISC, etc) • Cost structures? • Procurement of systems 6

New Procurement Paradigm • “conversation” between customer and supplier business models, iterating to BAFO • Generalised features: – system information (such as architecture, scalability, standards) – user information (such as “industrial-strength” reference sites) – “futures” on pedagogy and technology 7

Features 1 thru 6 • Architecture (+ maths, chemistry…) • Standards & interoperability • Costs over life cycle • Scalability (various aspects) • User interface & compatibility • Reference sites - relevant, big 8

Features 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 9

Not yet relevant to large-scale procurement by end-users • EML? Too early to say • Other European work (ERILE): not clear • Landon (Canada) - too detailed 10

Wise thoughts • Collis: server independence • Alexander et al (UTS): 8 criteria • A’Herran (see later): should not depend on “surface” features because they are volatile 11

Hambrecht report • Validates group communication, even in e -training • Contains 5 procurement criteria • But they can be absorbed in mine 12

Hambrecht 5 criteria • Leveraging on standards • Scalable to any size enterprise • Flexible technology • Easy integration with client systems • Media rich 13

Australian criteria: A’Herran @ JCU • 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 14

Other relevant input to procurement methodologies • Procurement: Richards - Selecting a Learning Management System you can live with, TMG Corporation, Vermont, 2000 • e. Army. U 2 -stage procurement • And of course JISC SJ 4 15

Functionality • 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 16

Hambrecht 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 17

Conclusions • No answers to what is “best” • Just a process to find your answer • May not be wise to rush, just at present • Professor Paul Bacsich p. bacsich@shu. ac. uk 18