Business model innovation: A blueprint for higher education — from Educause by Christine Flanagan

Excerpt:

Business model innovation is one of the most challenging components of 21st-century leadership. Making incremental improvements to a business model—creating new efficiencies, expanding into adjacent markets—is hard enough. Developing and experimenting with new business models that truly transform how an institution delivers value (while continuing to drive the performance of the current business model) is exceptionally difficult. Yet nowhere is the imperative for business model innovation more prevalent or more relevant than in higher education, which is under intense scrutiny and facing rising costs and potential disruption from all angles.

To compete in a world where the shelf life of business models is shortening, higher education leaders need the tools, skills, and experience to envision, test, and implement new business models. They must believe in the power of experimenting, in the real world, with a network of collaborators who have the audacity to change everything. As the legendary innovation mastermind Clayton Christensen says: “You don’t change a company by giving them ideas. You change them by training them to think a different way.”1

Why is American Higher Education so averse to change? — from Jeff Selingo

Excerpt:

In my 15 years of reporting on higher education—and especially in the last year as I have reported for my forthcoming book on the future of higher education—colleges and universities have come to remind me of other American content industries that have been disrupted in the last decade: newspapers and magazines, music, and book publishing. In many ways, colleges and universities are following the same playbook:

 

From DSC:
I hope that higher education learns from what the Internet did to other industries.  I hope we can reinvent ourselves, stay relevant, and ride the wave to create WIN-WIN situations…and not get crushed by it.

 

 

Does the U.S. accreditation system discriminate against online learning? — from Tony Bates

Excerpt:

Furthermore, problems remain in both Canada and the USA if students want to start taking online courses from an institution out of state or province then use that for advancement by transferring to a local university. The answer of course is more flexible credit transfer arrangements, more flexible prior learning assessment, and challenge exams, where students can demonstrate their learning without having to work through courses they have already taken elsewhere. Even some of the more prestigious research universities in Canada are realising that they need to be more flexible if they are to attract lifelong learners, for instance. Thus it’s as much up to the institutions as the regulators to ensure there is some flexibility in the system for students taking out of state or out of province online courses.

Yes, there needs to be sensible protections against fraud and fly-by-night online operators, but too often the restrictions, regulations and barriers are steeped in practices that no longer apply in an open, knowledge-based society. Every institution should be examining the structure of its courses, its admission requirements, its arrangements for credit transfer and prior learning assessment, and its strategy for lifelong learning, if it is to be fit for purpose in the 21st century. It is not an issue just of online learning.

From DSC:
Questions I often ponder re: accreditation:

  • Who sits on accrediting boards these days? Is it not people inside the current system?
  • What responsibilities do accreditation bodies have on them to enable/support change (where appropriate)?
  • Are such accreditation bodies feeling the pressure to help colleges and universities reinvent themselves in order to stay relevant? Or are they maintaining the status quo by all means possible?
  • Whose interests are ultimately being served by the current methods of accreditation? (I hope it’s the students!)

 

 

.

“A thousand year old industry on the cusp of profound change”

ADDIE must die! — from knowledgestarblog.wordpress.com by David Grebow

Excerpt:

What’s Missing?
As I read over this list, I kept missing some simple questions. Here are just a few:

  • What is the real problem and will it still be a problem by the time we [are] finished with the training program?
  • Does this help produce a learning experience that is social?
  • Will the program enable a community of learners who can be in contact after the program?
  • What is the best solution? Are we taking ALL the ways people can learn into account?
  • Does the solution really call for a training program? Would other approaches work as well if not better?
  • Will a passing test score mean people really learned how-to do something?
  • Does the solution relate directly to my business goals?
  • How can I measure the results?  Improved performance? Faster time-to-performance? More sales? More successful innovation?

Using ADDIE the answer was more often than not a resounding “NO”.

There’s another model for learning that asks more appropriate questions, and works for Enterprise 2.0 programs.

I’ll cover it in Part Two: The Better Learning Model

 

From DSC:
David brings up some excellent points in his 10/17/12 posting above. 

What gets me here is why, after having just graduated w/ my Masters in Instructional Design for Online Learning in June 2011, was ADDIE the most predominantly taught Instructional Design (ID) model throughout the entire program?  What the (*@%^^?   How long does it take to get new thinking/new models into our education-related programs? (Sebastian Thrun asked a similar question in his recent keynote address at the 18th Annual Sloan Consortium Conference on Online Learning:  “Why haven’t Colleges of Education contacted him about what’s working with Udacity!?!”  Why did 170 of his face-to-face students opt to take his more game-like online-based course?)

Phrases popping into my mind:

  • Streams of content
  • Communities of practice
  • Communities of inquiry
  • Real-time, training on demand
  • Informal learning
  • Staying relevant
  • Reinventing ourselves
  • Engagement

 

 

 

 

How student help desks support mobile devices — from centerdigitaled.com by Tanya Roscorla

Excerpt:

The help desk staff members each have a title, role and responsibilities. They solve problems for students and staff in-person, but they also update a blog with videos that address common issues they see.

.

Also see:

  • Why learning should be messy — from blogs.kqed.org by Nikhil Goyal
    Excerpt:
    “Today’s problems — from global poverty to climate change to the obesity epidemic — are more interconnected and intertwined than ever before and they can’t possibly be solved in the academic or research ‘silos’ of the twentieth century,” writes Frank Moss, the former head of the M.I.T. Media Lab. Schools cannot just simply add a “creativity hour” and call it a day.

The need for more experimentation, innovation within higher education.
By Daniel Christian for the CHFE12 MOOC

Last week, I attended the 18th Annual Sloan Consortium on Online Learning in Orlando, FL (USA). After hearing Sebastian Thrun’s excellent keynote address, I was very troubled by a couple of questions that kept arising in my mind (which I’ll get to in a minute). It turns out that Sebastian had heard Sal Kahn at a TED talk a while back, where he learned of the impact that Sal was having and the pedagogy Sal was using.

Now bear in mind that Sal was not in education.  He was working in the financial services industry, putting together training-related items for his nephews/family members.

Then bear in mind that Sal Kahn has arguably had one of the most significant impacts on K-12 of any individual in recent decades – and even on institutions of higher education (in terms of professors investigating or starting to use the flipped/inverted classroom model).

Then bear in mind that Sebastian Thrun didn’t run his idea by anyone in Stanford’s administration! His email out to some folks started going viral, and within days the enrollment numbers were already in the thousands.  (And at that point he got asked to drop by his Admin’s offices! 🙂  I wonder what would have happened if Sebastian would have first asked Stanford’s leadership for permission…? It may never have occurred.)

Sebastian’s and Peter Norvig’s AI course went onto graduate 23,000 people (with an initial enrollment around 160,000). Then, there’s the related Coursera organization/endeavor — again, a business that needed to be created outside of the traditional institutions of higher education.

So, recapping things:

  • Sebastian didn’t run things by anyone in his administration
  • He ended up needing to create his own company – outside of traditional higher ed (Udacity)
  • He was significantly influenced by someone completely outside of  education
  • Coursera and Udacity operate outside the policies and procedures of traditional institutions of higher education

So, the following two questions arose in my mind last week:

  1. Why didn’t these innovations come from – or why weren’t they developed within – traditional institutions of K-12/higher education?
  2. Why did such influence have to occur – in great part – from outside of “the established systems”?

Any answer to these questions is troubling to me. But one plausible explanation involves leadership. Many of our leaders in higher education did not grow up with the Internet and with LANs, WANs, HTTP protocols, etc.  They didn’t grow up using the tools that today’s youth are using.

As such, they don’t always appreciate the power and potential of technology. I don’t mean to point fingers and play a blame game here. That’s not the point. The point is, leaders are people with finite gifts and abilities. Like all of us, they have been shaped by their experiences and they, too,  have their histories. They were moved into their positions of responsibility due to the needs of of the institutions at certain points in time. But the needs of those institutions have since changed.

The problem is, those in key leadership positions will either need to:

  • Quickly come to appreciate the disruptive, powerful impact that technologies can have (i.e. be sold on them) and strategize accordingly
    and/or
  • Find other positions (which most likely won’t be happening if normal self-preservation tendencies/principles of power continue to occur)

Blockbuster comes to mind as an organization that was once dominant, but disregarded the disruptive impact of technology and eventually had to declare bankruptcy. One can think of other examples from other industries as well (can’t we Kodak? Borders?).

Such reflections were reinforced when I read Selingo’s (2012) article from earlier today where he wrote, “It’s clear to me that the needed reforms for student financial-aid are unfortunately not going to come from higher education. Many financial-aid officials remain opposed to the model letter, as well as many other regulations.”

Like Selingo, I don’t see change coming from within the current system.  I hope that I’m sorely mistaken here, but from the pulse checking I’ve been doing, the conversation seems to be continuing to move away from traditional institutions of higher education (example here and another example here).  I hope that we can pick up the pace of experimentation within our organizations to find ways to lower the costs while still providing effective means of educating people.

Selingo, J.  (2012, October 15). In a Broken Student Aid System, Colleges Are Part of the Problem. In The Quick and the Ed. Retrieved from http://www.quickanded.com/2012/10/in-a-broken-student-aid-system-colleges-are-part-of-the-problem.html

Addendum/also see:

Sal Kahn and Eric Schmidt - at Google Talks -- October 2012

 

 

 

 

Online Education Grows Up, And For Now, It's Free -- from NPR.org

 

 

From DSC:
Sending a special thanks out to Dr. Kate Byerwalter,
Professor at Grand Rapids Community College for this resource!

 

Also see:

 

Debt collectors cashing in on student loans — from the New York Times by Andrew Martin

Excerpt (emphasis DSC):

…many borrowers are struggling to pay off their student loans, and the debt collection industry is cashing in.

As the number of people taking out government-backed student loans has exploded, so has the number who have fallen at least 12 months behind in making payments — about 5.9 million people nationwide, up about a third in the last five years.

In all, nearly one in every six borrowers with a loan balance is in default. The amount of defaulted loans — $76 billion — is greater than the yearly tuition bill for all students at public two- and four-year colleges and universities, according to a survey of state education officials.

In an attempt to recover money on the defaulted loans, the Education Department paid more than $1.4 billion last fiscal year to collection agencies and other groups to hunt down defaulters.

 

From DSC:
Administrators throughout the country need to ask, how can we cut the price of our degrees by 50% or more?  No kidding!  I realize that sounds crazy, but if we don’t do this, cheaper — and increasingly attractive/convenient — alternatives will continue to develop. The conversation is not moving in a positive direction folks.
  There is a limit to people’s incomes and patience here.

The Washington Monthly - The Magazine - The Siege of Academe [Kevin Carey]

Excerpt:

The ongoing carnage in the newspaper industry provides an object lesson of what can happen when a long-established, information-focused industry’s business model is challenged by low-price competitors online. The disruptive power of information technology may be our best hope for curing the chronic college cost disease that is driving a growing number of students into ruinous debt or out of higher education altogether. It may also be an existential threat to institutions that have long played a crucial role in American life.

.

From DSC:
If higher ed doesn’t respond more forcefully/significantly to the perfect storm it finds itself in, people will find other ways of getting employed and staying employed. The conversation continues to move away from institutions of traditional higher education (here’s but one example). Control is an illusion.

The middle class falls further behind -- part of the perfect storm for higher ed in the US

 

From DSC:
Along with a host of other trends, this is a piece of the perfect storm in higher ed. People will find a way to make a living — whether this involves “traditional” higher education or not. From a career development side of things, robotics may make these graphics even more pronounced as jobs move from being done by humans to jobs being done by robots.

Also see:

 

.

Addendums:

 

The decline of US manufacturing jobs and living standards — from bbc.co.uk by Jonny Dymond BBC News, Michigan

Excerpt:

For decades America’s vibrant manufacturing sector provided poorly educated workers a bridge to the middle class. But today’s plants need highly skilled workers who know their way around ultra-high tech machinery.

From DSC:
While manufacturing levels are back up, unemployment rates continue (McAfee, 8/8/12 –> “But new manufacturing facilities in America and elsewhere today don’t need large numbers of hard-working-but-unskilled workers; they need small numbers of hard-working-and-highly-skilled ones.”).

I have a feeling the middle class is going to continue to shrink here in America, unless we can reinvent ourselves. But reinventing ourselves requires that people learn about new things — something much more feasible if people like to learn. 

Upon graduating high school, do our students like to learn? Upon graduating college, do your students enjoy learning about new things? If not, how can we make learning more engaging and enjoyable?  That’s imporant these days because there”s no more hopping on the corporate bandwagon for 40 years and then retiring with a nice pension/401(K) plan.  All of us will need to “go back to our drawing boards” many times during our lifetimes now.

 Also see:

 

 

The financially sustainable university — from bain.com, a Bain Brief by Jeff Denneen and Tom Dretle

Excerpts (emphasis DSC):

Still, at the majority of institutions, the pace of change is slower than it needs to be. Plenty of hurdles exist, including the belief that things will return to the way they always were. (Note: They won’t.) But the biggest obstacle is more fundamental: While leaders might have a sense of what needs to be done, they may not know how to achieve the required degree of change that will allow their institution not just to survive, but also thrive with a focused strategy and a sustainable financial base.

Too often, stakeholders believe that the current cash crunch and need for change is a temporary phenomenon that will subside as the economy continues to improve. But those who see things this way probably haven’t been exposed to the data presented here and in other reports that show convincingly that this time is different. Faculty and other key stakeholders must be shown clear and compelling facts to disprove the “return to the status quo” notion and to clarify the corresponding negative implications and consequences of inaction.

.

The Financially Sustainable University - July 2012 - a Bain Brief by Denneen & Dretle

My hats off to Clayton Christensen and Henry Eyring!  My respect level just went up yet another notch for these two people.

Seeing as Clayton is a Professor at ***Harvard‘s*** Business School and Henry is an ***Administrator*** at Brigham Young University, their stance and recent letter to college and university trustees nationwide is a wonderful example of true leadership.   They risked many things by taking a stand and urging institutions of higher education to change. Their purpose is noble. Their message should be heeded.

From the website of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni: (emphasis by DSC)

Clayton Christensen: higher ed trustees “crucial as never before”
Harvard Business School professor (and bestselling author of The Innovator’s Dilemma) Clayton M. Christensen and Henry J. Eyring of Brigham Young University recently sent a letter to college and university trustees nationwide, recognizing a critical turning point for the future of higher education. “If you’ve been serving for more than a few years, you’ve seen a big change in the nature of trustees meetings,” the authors wrote. “Before the downturn of 2008, the agenda tended to focus on growth and on ways to fund it…. At some point, the bubble was bound to burst—or at least start to sag. Now that it has, your role becomes crucial as never before.” The letter urges trustees to demand innovative solutions to expand student access and improve academic quality at their institutions: “The innovators can do more than merely avoid disruption. They can help usher in a new age of higher education, one of unprecedented access and quality, a combined industrial revolution and renaissance.”

 

.

Addendum on 7/16/12:

© 2024 | Daniel Christian