You are in :

Responses to consultation on the proposed e-University business model

1. In October 2000 we published a proposed business model for the e-University, developed by consultants PricewaterhouseCoopers (HEFCE 00/44), and a document setting out issues for consultation (HEFCE 00/43). A total of 77 responses to the consultation were received:

  • 42 from higher education institutions (HEIs) in England
  • 8 from HEIs in Scotland
  • 6 from HEIs in Wales
  • 1 from an HEI in Northern Ireland
  • 20 from others (Universities UK - formerly the CVCP); Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP); Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC); Learning and Teaching Support Network; HE consortia - Universitas 21, Worldwide Universities Network, University of London; SCONUL; Association for Learning Technology; University of Highlands and Islands; Royal College of Nursing; British and Irish Legal Education Technology Association; plus 8 from individuals).

General

2. The e-University project and the PwC Business Model attracted considerable support: 74 per cent of HEIs expressed their general support and commended the main aspects of the model. In addition, a number of HE consortia expressed interest in working closely with the e-University in the future. The picture was different between the individual nations of the UK: 78 per cent were in favour among English HEIs (with 12 per cent against and 10 per cent reserving their position); 75 per cent were against the model among Scottish HEIs; and 100 per cent were in favour among Welsh and Northern Ireland HEIs. A number of detailed issues were raised that would need to be resolved before firm commitments were made, but the vast majority of HEIs responding expressed considerable enthusiasm for participating in the project in future.

3. Most respondents also expressed admiration for the PwC report, which provided a comprehensive and intelligent exposition of a complex subject. A few felt that more detailed information was needed (such as on financing and risks).

4. Most institutions commended the change in the model to a more inclusive approach. However, a few were concerned that there would be branding challenges in an e-University that worked with a wide range of HEIs. Several HEIs commented that the brokerage role of the e-University found favour, although others saw this again as a branding challenge. The majority of institutions were fairly happy with the corporate structure of the e-University, although a very few found it confusing. The areas of the report that attracted most debate were the provision of learner support and the need for a flexible approach to both the learning materials and the technological platform (discussed below).

5. Respondents felt that the following aspects of the model required further resolution.

  1. Although the vast majority of institutions agreed that a partnership with the private sector was needed, some expressed concern that the HE sector should maintain a controlling interest in the venture. It was noted that the licence protected not only the reputation of the e-University but also of all the HEIs participating in it, and hence would need to be carefully constructed, similarly the shareholders' agreement.
  2. A number of institutions considered that the timetable for development of the project was over-ambitious. They noted that negotiations with the private sector were likely to be lengthy; it would take some time to implement the ambitious technological development that was proposed; and that engagement with the sector was needed on pedagogic and quality and standards issues.
  3. A number of institutions said that a more detailed business plan was needed urgently, which could provide reassurance on the likely investment needed for the e-University, but also the likely costs for HEIs in participating.

6. Suggested alternative models were:

  1. Individual HEIs working in smaller consortia and attracting their own private sector partners would best advance e-learning. (It should be noted, though, that many institutions that are already in e-learning consortia felt that the e-University could be consistent with their individual strategies and could bring them additional benefits. One institution therefore argued that the e-University should not be exclusive and should allow HEIs to use diverse branding, marketing and distribution mechanisms.)
  2. The view that e-learning would be advanced best by a range of e-learning initiatives.

7. The balance of opinion against the e-University model in Scotland reflected the fact that institutions already have a national vehicle for e-learning in Scottish Knowledge, and some institutions are also in a relevant global alliance. Institutions felt that they would need convincing that a UK approach had distinctive advantage over their national and global strategies, and hence also argued that more detail about the e-University was needed. There was also a view that smaller consortia might be more effective.

8. SCOP was generally supportive of the project but expressed concerns that: the e-University should not be limited to degree-awarding bodies; composition of the Committee for Academic Quality would need careful thought; there was a risk that private sector partners might not be forthcoming. Universities UK (CVCP) also expressed general support, although noting the need for more work on markets, Intellectual Property Rights and quality assurance, and expressing concern over the proposition that the e-University might in time become an accreditor.

9. The JISC response noted the range of expertise that it could provide to the project (particularly on Managed Learning Environments) but also stressed that it could only appropriately support an inclusive initiative. JISC also noted the potential contribution of the FE sector.

Pedagogic model: learning support, learning materials, navigation

10. The greatest area of controversy in the business model was the provision of student support, and this attracted the most comment. The PwC report recommended that pedagogic support should be embedded within learning materials, and that supplementary on-line support might be negotiated for individual students at a price. Some institutions felt that on-line support, and even face-to-face to support, would always be necessary to ensure that the learner had a satisfactory and effective learning experience. Others felt that fully embedded support might be possible eventually, but that well designed materials would take time to develop. Respondents also noted that peer interaction - communities of learning - was an important component of the learning experience much appreciated by learners. They felt that postgraduate education, in particular, required deep interaction and engagement with knowledge that might not be amenable to delivery without appropriate support.

11. The different attitudes of HEIs on the need for support are also linked to their views on likely markets. Many HEIs argued that the e-University should focus more on domestic lifelong learners and on widening access, and hence argued that more individually tailored support would be needed. Others were more firmly focused on overseas and professional markets and hence had different expectations about appropriate levels of support.

12. Other points made:

  1. Some form of on-line support was likely to be needed for the foreseeable future and hence the e-University would need to face up to the cost implications of this at an early stage.
  2. The University for Industry (UfI) was working on student support and there might be dangers if different standards emerged.
  3. If student support was outsourced, then attention would need to be given to the career development of tutors and their links to accrediting/providing HEIs.
  4. Further clarity was needed over whether e-learning students would have any entitlement to use campus-based facilities of the provider/accreditor.

13. On learning materials, there were concerns that the technologies of the e-University would force the sector to converge on certain pedagogic approaches, which might not be appropriate. It was likely that making materials have the same 'look and feel', which would be attractive for the customer, could restrain pedagogic options.

14. Several respondents noted that e-learning needed to be supported by a range of content to support the learning materials (some of which might be print). Early progress would be needed on an 'e-library', and the project would need to draw upon the resources of the JISC, particularly the Distributed National Electronic Resource. It was noted that use of library materials over the Internet was still very restricted.

15. Other points made on learning materials were:

  1. Considerable investment would be needed.
  2. Some institutions felt, contrary to the PwC report, that there was a considerable body of e-learning materials already available in the HE sector. Others felt that it would take time to develop materials of the quality described in the PwC report, and hence a staged process might be needed to bring the existing materials on-line and to upgrade these over time. The absence of trained staff in this area was noted, which again would have time consequences for development.
  3. The PwC report represented learning materials as a static resource, and under-estimated the need to refresh these pedagogically. This would have implications for quality assurance processes in re-assuring materials, as well as profitability.
  4. Past technological initiatives have demonstrated the difficulties in achieving reusability of learning objects because courses tend to be highly customised (although a number of HEIs thought that reuse of materials in domestic and campus-based learning was a valuable feature of the project).
  5. Devising secure learning pathways was a very difficult task which could not be left to technology alone.

16. The 'navigator' idea was generally supported and was regarded as an important and novel concept in the future delivery of e-learning. However, institutions noted that there was a wider array of support needed by the student (pedagogic support, administrative support, technological support, pastoral support) and that further clarification was needed on how this support would be given and by whom. It was noted that the accrediting institution might be better placed than the navigators to provide some of this support, but there would then be cost implications for the HEI; there would also need to be some overall standards set for all e-University provision. It was also noted that the navigators would need to be backed up by a system for plotting secure learning pathways (determining required and permitted modules).

17. Many respondents noted the considerable challenges posed by the flexibility of learning pathways proposed. Early work would be needed on credit accumulation and transfer systems (and the experience of SCOTCATS was referenced). It was noted that individual institutions would have different views on the quality and appropriate credit rating of others' modules, and that description by time (for example half a semester) did not equate to a credit rating. It would be important to ensure that modules did not duplicate materials, so that there was no redundancy in the learning for the student. Some questioned whether an external examiner would be involved in assessment of each module; if so, there was a danger of a student being passed through a series of external examiners. It was also noted that a student on a customised pathway with modules from a range of providers would need to be registered several times, increasing the administrative burden. One institution suggested that students would probably register and re-register with time-gaps and hence some unique identifier would be needed to identify their learning 'timeline' (and suggested that large mail order companies might have relevant expertise).

Quality

18. There was general support for the proposals for quality assurance of the e-University. The majority thought attention to quality would be important to safeguard the reputation of UK HE, although a minority argued that this should be left to the market. It was stressed that the quality of all aspects of the learning experience needed to be assured; and that the PwC report was less explicit about how quality of student support, as opposed to materials, would be assured.

19. Many stressed that clarity was needed over the responsibilities and roles of the accreditor, e-University and Quality Assurance Agency in quality regimes. It would be important not to duplicate activity and thereby put greater burdens on HEIs. The accreditor would be legally responsible to the student, and hence the accreditor would need to be reassured about the quality of the e-University's operations (rather, in fact, than the other way round as presupposed in the report).

20. Some institutions expressed concern that membership of the Committee for Academic Quality might be drawn in such a way as to impair the inclusivity of the model. These institutions stressed that members of the committee should be chosen on the basis of their expertise in e-learning. Rotating membership would also help ensure inclusivity and spread knowledge about how the e-University operated.

21. It was noted that the committee and its sub-panels themselves might need to be externally assured to check on consistency. The role of the external examiner in quality assurance also needed to be exposed further.

Technology

22. Several institutions stressed the danger in the e-University specifying managed learning environments and information systems. They felt that there was already a diversity of systems in the HE sector, and specifying learning tools and management support systems would risk cutting across these, and it might be too early to converge on a standard. It was noted that the project should learn from the experience of the MAC initiative. Support was expressed for the COTS (Commercial Off the Shelf) approach to building the technology platform, rather than bespoke systems. Several institutions stressed that the e-University needed to draw upon the expertise of the JISC.

Other commercial issues: markets, branding, IPRs

23. Virtually all respondents commended the choice of markets in the PwC report, although a few argued for greater focus on social inclusion. Some suggested that there were additional markets among those who were part way to qualifications through a campus-based experience, or who wished to upgrade to higher levels of qualifications. Some institutions suggested that the e-University would make a greater contribution to e-learning through providing business to business transfer of materials from HEI to HEI, than through business to customer, that is delivery to the learner.

24. Several institutions commented on the complexity of the branding issues presented by the e-University. Many stressed the importance of the e-University promoting the brand of the provider/accreditor, and some expressed concern that there might be conflicts in branding between the e-University's and the accreditor's aspirations. There was some fear that the e-University might become a rival if it was too clearly branded as a 'university', while others thought that it could only be successful if it had an 'academic' flavour.

25. The control of intellectual property rights (IPR) was flagged in many responses as needing further clarification. It was suggested that the e-University would not necessarily need to own rights but would need sophisticated licences to enable it to use materials effectively and securely. In general, HEIs stressed that there needed to be a reasonable division of control and rewards between the e-University and providers of materials.

26. Several responses also noted that further investigation was needed of data protection issues and consumer law implications for the e-University. Several responses also expressed scepticism about advertising revenue as an appropriate source of funding for the e-University.

Last updated 13 February 2001