The sociotechnology of survival

The older the habit, the harder it is to break, and in higher education, some habits go back 1000 years, writes Mark Ellis. When technology creates the capacity for everyone to be a learner at all times, rendering lecture theatres redundant, what role is left for traditional education institutions? This was a question at two recent higher education conferences, hosted by CCA-Educause in Sydney and Universities Australia in Canberra. Speakers outlined confronting visions for universities profoundly challenged by the game-changing potential of information technologies. CCA-Educause’s Richard Katz spoke amusingly of “a sector gone Gothic” being “monstered” by, among other things, corporatisation, consumerisation, mechanisation, the erosion of scholarly standards and the decline of civil discourse. The business forecaster Phil Ruthven of IBISWorld predicted at the Universities Australia conference that as costs grow along with rising student numbers, revenues will need to escalate and new efficiencies will have to be found. Virtual reality and cyber classrooms will replace laboratories and lecture theatres and universities will seek to free up cash for core operations by selling off billions of dollars worth of hard assets such as land and buildings. (Unis urged to modernise as tough times loom, Campus Review 8/3/11) The older the habit, the harder it is to break, and in higher education, some of the habits go back 1000 years. So how to plan for change when the technology that campuses will be expected to support in five years probably doesn’t exist today? And how to harness technology to suit institutional goals, ensuring it’s the education dog that wags the technology tail, and not the other way around? As their students swim effortlessly in the cyber stream, institutions perceive that they must offer the latest technologies, including mobile technologies, to stay competitive. Students connect with their lecturers via interactive web platforms and social media such as Facebook and Twitter. Long hours in the library stacks and at the photocopying machines are long gone; the internet is becoming their primary resource cache and research tool. They expect to interact with their university administration via email, text message or Twitter. Meanwhile most faculty and administrators view technology quite differently, as a means to an end, a tool that will make grading, research, and administrative functions easier to complete. The divergent expectations of these two groups can end badly – in inadequate services, ineffective policies, and programs that fail to engage their intended audiences. The performance pressure on ICT software and hardware is growing. It must respond to increased competition, rapidly evolving student expectations, cost pressures and greater demands for accountability. Yet as the foundations on which colleges and universities were built continue to shift it becomes clear that it is not just the technology selected that determines successful outcomes and whether organisational goals are met. With information instantaneously accessible at low cost around the globe, products and services can be readily replicated. It is how they are delivered – the human element – that sets an organisation apart and that will draw people into connection with it. For colleges and universities to get the most out of their technology investments, the primary focus of institutional leadership must be on the people, the processes, and the culture those technologies will support. An institution has to look beyond the latest offering and dig deep into the wants, desires and expectations of its audiences to identify what is core to its stated values and goals. It then needs to develop its enterprise architecture (EA), a framework of processes and resources, including technology, to ensure these goals are met. Just as a blueprint helps a contractor, architect, or builder to determine the best approach to remodeling or renovation, an EA provides different stakeholders in an enterprise a way to understand how changes in one area, process, or application will potentially impact on others. A mature EA provides a basis for analysing and planning changes and ensuring technical efforts support overall institutional priorities. It involves considering what is available today and documenting the existing application portfolio and workflow. The resulting models can be used for a variety of efforts across the institution, ranging from process improvements to training models. By its nature EA is a sociotechnical framework. An institution’s complete EA approach would include documentation of: • Strategic goals and objectives • Important initiatives and direction • Educational/business units • People who support each area • Functions and processes that are core to departments and divisions • Technical services and applications • Infrastructure required to support all of the above Those who think about technology as a part of an integrated system where people, processes, and technology work together are well positioned to bridge the gap between strategy and reality – if not with complete control, then with considerably less chaos. The survivors in higher education will be those who take an innovative approach to thinking about technology and who position their institutions to move toward agility. Only then will they be able to take full advantage of of the creative possibilities in the interplay between people and technology, some of which we already know about, and much of which is yet to reveal itself. Mark Ellis worked in the financial services industry for 15 years before moving into the higher education sector in 2001. In 2005 he joinedMacquarieUniversitywhere he managed their Research Office and had overall responsibility for research information systems during a time of organisational and technological change. He is now vice-president, Asia Pacific, of SunGard Higher Education.