Digital at the core: a 2030 strategy framework for university leaders

• Explicit alignment to university mission
• Building and maintaining momentum
• Dedicated, well-resourced strategy

Y axis is used to measure cost:

• Generate income (top of axis)
• Cut costs (bottom of axis)

X axis is used to show whether activity is:

• Transactional (left of axis)
• Transformational (right of axis)

If you are operating between:

• Generating income and transformational activity: Reaching new markets with mode-free (on-par online and physical delivery)
• Cutting costs and transformational activity: Replacing physical campus with digital
• Cutting costs and transactional: Workflow automation
• Generating income and transactional: Scaling up existing revenue streams (lift and shift)

Digitisation

Changing from analog or physical to digital form

• Step 1: Digitise information
• Step 2: Organise information

Digitalisation

Using digital technologies and information to transform individual institutional operations

• Step 3: Automate processes
• Step 4. Streamline processes

Digital transformation

A series of deep and coordinated culture, workforce and technology shifts that enable new educational and operating models and transform an institution's operations, strategic directions and value proposition.

• Step 5. Transform your institution

Customer-centricity is essential to move from "renovate" to "transcend".

Renovate

How do we optimise our existing operations?

Evolve

How do we put our student, alumni and staff in the center of our organisation?

Transcend

How do we create stakeholder value in new ways?

To survive the current and future shocks, digital needs to be part of institution wide strategy rather than a bolt on or afterthought. The senior executive teams shape the university strategy and need to put technology on the strategy agenda.

The decisions that this will require will be consequential for the delivery of the long term strategy of any higher education institution. Therefore, the senior team should not delegate development and consideration of the digital strategy to anyone else either within or outside their organisation.

The pace of change is very significant, and many senior university leaders would benefit from engaging actively in developing their own understanding of the landscape around digital technologies. Their own expertise and confidence will influence their ability to make informed decisions.

This means that senior executive teams need to be aware of the gaps in their capability when it comes to digital strategy and need to be prepared to fill these gaps, either through training, experiencing first hand how leading institutions around the world are successfully adopting such technologies, or by bringing in specialist expertise from the wider professional community.

Structure of the executive team and the decision making process

The decisions around developing a digital strategy must remain with the senior executive team. Its structure varies significantly across universities, which will determine whether digital expertise already exists within the exec team, needs to be improved among current members, or can be brought in when key decisions are being considered. At most institutions, there will be a need for digital upskilling of the senior executive teams to establish a common baseline of digital fluency.

Prior experience of the executive team

Some members of the executive team may already be familiar with best digital practice in their area of responsibility. This may have been acquired through pedagogical or research experience or through exposure to relevant professional services functions. It is worth identifying the strengths of individual senior execs to know when to leverage them. However, this is a fast moving area of activity and continued development will be required.

Role of digital in the institutional USP

The level of digital fluency required from senior execs depends on how central the digital technology will be for delivering the institution’s long-term strategy. For example, online teaching may be core to future provision, which would require significant in-house expertise. In other cases, the university may anticipate largely outsourcing this function to third parties like online programme managers (OPMs), which would require a different digital skillset from the execs.

Continuing development in digital fluency

In the aftermath of the pandemic a range of resources are becoming available to help senior executive teams to develop digital capability. The web version of this framework will maintain a list of the most relevant programmes and materials to consult.

Mini-consultancy (internal)

For many senior executives, developing in depth expertise in digital technology may not be an immediate priority, but the ability to answer questions about digital still needs to be developed as an institutional capability.

Consider creating an internal unit that specialises in digital strategy and supports senior execs and others across the institution potentially structured as a Programme Management Office (PMO) or a transformation directorate.

Peer networks

There are significant opportunities to learn from the experience of senior peers at other institutions. Utilising best practice from across the sector, including internationally, would enable senior execs to identify and address blind spots in their own digital fluency.

Some gaps in digital awareness can be addressed with insight from the governing body. However, many institutions will not have a good view of whether current members possess this knowledge and how to facilitate the right conversations around digital. It is important to avoid focusing on the detail of implementation but rather facilitate an open and honest discussion that provides check, challenge and inspiration to innovate.

A diverse governing body ensures that university strategies are fit for all stakeholders. At the moment, boards rarely serve as a conduit for fresh thinking about the role of digital technology and how it can support all students, as in many cases few members have the relevant professional or life experience. Therefore, it is important to consider how that expertise can be expanded and what existing knowledge among members can be leveraged.

Current make-up of the board

Does the board include people with relevant expertise and experience, eg digital transformation? This may be outside HE, but depending on the level of digital fluency among the board themselves they may require different levels of support

The role of the board today

What areas of institutional strategy does the governing body focus on the most and have they previously been involved in decisions on digital strategy outside or within HE? In some cases, it may be appropriate to recreate models of engagement used for other strategic questions (eg campus investment) for a session on digital strategy.

Relevant experience

What experience is most relevant? Is there a need to expand the board to include a wider range of voices and backgrounds? This may range from student representatives to IT professionals (with enterprise of startup experience) to corporate executives with digital marketing or consumer-facing backgrounds.

Identify strengths and gaps

Analyse where the current board can contribute the most with a view to digital strategy and where some of the potential gaps are.

Review the composition of the board with digital in mind

Consider expanding the board to bring on new members with a diverse range of experiences, as there is strong evidence that greater board diversity is a positive influence on decision-making.

If this is not possible in the short term, consider bringing in external consultants or experts for brainstorming sessions, who can provide provocative insights.

Set clear expectations

It is important to ensure that the level of input expected from board members is clear to them and contributes to the development of strategy (eg focus the broader vision vs recommendations for particular workflows to be digitised or specific products to adopt).

In addition to digital fluency, which is required across the exec team, accountability for digital strategy at the senior level is a must. To deliver strategic benefits, digital needs to span across a whole range of functions such as teaching, professional services, and research rather than be siloed to one functional area. This suggests the need for a balance of deep expertise such as possessed by CIO-type roles with general oversight and strategic direction.

In the long term, significant coordination across the senior exec team will also be required as well as across a range of functions within the university. Avoiding silos and establishing trust in decisions around long-term investments may require the appointment of a point-person among the existing team, provided they have the capacity and digital awareness, or creation of a dedicated digital strategy role. This need can also be met with new types of roles appearing within the sector, sometimes modeled on enterprise chief digital officer/chief technology officer roles (CDO/CTO). 

Existing structure of the senior executive team

CIO-type roles are often focused on operational efficiencies as opposed to transformation across functions. Universities can consider expanding the CIO’s remit, or, depending on the reporting lines from the IT directorate, accountability could end up with the COO, especially if they have specific digital expertise. In any case, careful review of who currently holds the responsibility and whether they have the authority and ability to drive change across functional areas is required.

Scope and desire to introduce new senior level roles

In the corporate world there is a growing trend towards C level roles focused on digital (CDO, CTO, or chief product officer), which may present a model to emulate. In some cases, we have seen the emergence of dedicated digital vice-chancellor (DVC) level roles with responsibility for digital within universities, but there may not always be scope for major changes and introducing new roles.

Ability and desire to attract people with non-HE experience

To find the blend of digital expertise and strategic thinking that is required to succeed in this type of coordinating role, universities may have to look outside HE in their hiring practices. However, their ability to attract the right talent may vary depending on location, brand name recognition, and financial position.

Decide between creating new roles or expanding responsibilities

This will depend on the financial position, ability to attract talent, and existing levels of expertise within the executive team.

Map which functions are likely to see the greatest impact from changes related to digital

This could be in teaching, research, marketing, or elsewhere. If a particular function is likely to be affected more strongly, the senior exec responsible for it may be best placed to serve as the point person.

Consider the need for a sub-DVC coordinating role

This could be similar to a policy or strategy adviser, with a specific focus on digital, or a director of transformation. Such roles are likely to report directly to the VC and would help align the different stakeholders involved.

Addressing a lack of digital confidence among staff is among the highest priorities in mitigating risks in the delivery of digital strategy.

As a first step, it’s important to understand what good looks like when it comes to staff digital skills and establishing an institutional benchmark. From there a coherent institutionalised approach that recognises and builds on existing examples of excellence is required.

This means implementing visible and exciting initiatives that are aligned to the core mission of the university, providing visibility to departments that are already doing things well, both internally and externally. Within every institution there will be a subset of staff with high levels of digital skills. Learning from them is likely to be among the most effective routes to address the lack of confidence.

Benchmarking 

A key first step is understanding at what level your staff are operating currently and what the most pressing gaps are. With a high-quality benchmark, it will be much easier to plan a system that provides the right level of support and incentive for staff across all functions. An excellent set of resources for benchmarking is available from Jisc’s building digital capability framework.

Hiring requirements (now and future)

To what extent are digital skills required from new hires and does it need to be taken into consideration when recruiting new staff? Do hiring committees themselves have the expertise to assess those skills?

Pockets of excellence

A commonly quoted figure for the proportion of staff who can serve as models for peer learning is 20% but the specifics of where they work will vary.

This may be because of a particular department with strong digital leadership or because a community of practice has formed around a particular pedagogical technique. It’s important to be able to locate and leverage this expertise

Identify current level and gaps

You can use tools such as the Jisc digital capability framework to assess staff skill levels to establish a benchmark for your institution's digital skills and identify examples of best practice and any gaps in skills.

Jisc research shows that peer-to-peer is seen as the most effective method of support to help lecturers deliver teaching online (67%), followed by online webinars or training courses (56%), and how-to guides (45%).

Clearly signpost high-quality resources on an ongoing basis and create opportunities for peers to support each other.

Resources you might find useful include:

• Supporting the move/enhancement of online curricula and effective teaching - Active Digital Design
• Teaching Skills Masterclass - Advance HE
• Certificate in Learning and Teaching in HE - Advance HE

Look for champions

Identify the people or departments within the university who are excited about using digital technology and support them to share their experience with peers. By giving those who do things well already greater visibility (for example, through staff awards or funding opportunities), universities can secure the enthusiastic support of these experts who can spearhead relevant initiatives.

Review hiring practices

Consider whether a baseline level of digital capability is required for new joiners in some roles (including among teaching staff as well as among managers), and whether the current process of shortlisting and selecting candidates allows to identify their digital skills

University staff will want to understand how the use of digital tools (and associated professional development) contributes to their career prospects.

This will be particularly relevant in teaching roles, where there is a genuine strategic need to go beyond a ‘lift-and-shift’ approach to pedagogy. This requires significant investment of time and effort from staff, so it is important they know how it can help their career.

In some places, research activities are seen as more valuable or staff may believe that existing approaches to teaching are ‘good enough’. In these cases, motivation for teaching innovation will be low, which will present a major barrier to the delivery of digital strategy.

On the other hand, where digital excellence has a clear and explicit link to professional recognition, staff in teaching as well as supporting roles (for example, learning technologists) will perform at their best. Changes to career frameworks and the structure of professional development review (PDR) meetings will demonstrate the university’s commitment to its digital strategy and provide a long-term incentive for its adoption.

Current career progression routes

Most universities have introduced teaching-based promotion opportunities, but only a few (as yet) explicitly recognise digital skills as a necessary component. Depending on the institution, there may be combined or separate research and teaching tracks, and in the latter case both may need to be updated to emphasise digital excellence.

Current staff perception

Over the past decade, significant progress has been made in improving the standing of teaching careers within HE, but evidence suggests that at many institutions research still takes priority (although this is changing). This perception among staff may sometimes be at odds with leadership’s stated priorities, and significant effort may be required to create a greater sense of parity.

Current and future mix of online and blended learning

Universities that expect full-time staff to focus on face-to-face delivery whenever possible (for example, by partnering with third parties such as online programme managers (OPM) for online courses) are likely to put less emphasis on digital skills in teaching. Instead, digital capabilities may play a bigger role in the career prospects of professional services staff such as international recruitment officers.

Establish a baseline

Review the current career frameworks as well as sector best practice (for example, the Advance HE UK Professional Standards Framework and the Royal Society of Engineering Career Framework for University Teaching) and identify opportunities to introduce criteria around digital skills.

Know your staff’s views

Understand current perceptions of the prestige of research vs teaching career paths among your staff and whether staff believe digital skills play a role in their career progression. Over time, you can track how these perceptions shift to understand the impact of any changes you make.

Give people time and guidance

Ensure that professional development initiatives have appropriate budgets and make time for staff to improve their skills and learn from each other. Implementing these changes can’t just come on top of existing responsibilities, therefore staff will need time and support from teaching fellows and assistants. Establishing and clearly signposting opportunities for staff to develop their digital skills should go hand-in-hand with emphasising digital excellence as a contributor to career progression.

Technology tools and the workflows they enable are developing at a pace that exceeds the usual speed of change within university settings. In order to work with digital tools effectively staff need to be able to adapt to new tools as they evolve rather than follow a fixed set of instructions.

This will become increasingly important now that the coronavirus crisis has impressed the importance of digital workflows for institutional resilience within teaching, research, and professional services.

However, this widespread use of digital technology is new and establishing best practice will take time, leading to a prolonged period of uncertainty. To cope with this uncertainty, a culture of continuous improvement and an openness to experimentation is required.

In the best case scenario, the same feedback-based culture will permeate beyond the use of digital tools specifically and will have a positive effect on teaching practice and operational efficiency more broadly. In any case, carefully phased communication will be necessary to achieve strategic objectives.

Scale of change required

There is a need to consider how far from existing working practices you anticipate moving. Are the changes only affecting the mode of delivery, do they extend to curriculum design as well, or are they even more fundamental, causing a complete re-think of education and teaching? Do the changes affect individual roles and the structure of departments?

Pace of change and upfront investment required

There will be different trade-offs to consider in implementing changes to ways of working. With significant upfront investment changes can be made quicker but are likely to require greater iteration down the line, making the culture of continuous improvement even more important.

Regulatory barriers

Particularly within teaching and learning, some subject areas are more difficult to introduce rapid feedback loops into due to Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRB) requirements, which tend to emphasise stability of qualifications. If the changes affect the curriculum, universities need to consider whether their current course validation timelines make it possible to respond to feedback in a timely manner, and what changes to those timelines they are in a position to make.

Set out a clear values statement

A useful technique is to align all staff around a unifying vision or a set of principles so that while individual practices change, the overarching aspirations remain true.

Recognise the growing importance of design thinking

A focus on solving the problem at hand with whatever method works best as opposed to a predetermined process should become a key competency among staff and its development should be encouraged. This will help instil the culture of improvement and reduce the fear of failure.

Introduce or shorten student feedback loops

Ideally, this should affect every module, so that changes can be made quickly and their impact tracked for further iteration. The key is to be transparent about the feedback that is received, and to act on the feedback in a timely manner.

Communicate the long-term plan and break it down into stages

Ensure that you are taking staff on a journey with you by breaking down the long term vision into manageable phases and communicating them clearly. Connect the changes that are being introduced to existing norms and values for staff and make clear how that helps deliver an institutional mission.

The expansion of higher education in the UK and the growing diversity of the student body has been one of the big successes of the past decade. This more heterogeneous student population comes into universities with a different set of expectations.

The tuition fees also contribute to a consumer mind-set among students who expect universities to better address their individual needs. This applies not only to teaching and learning but to every touchpoint between the student (prospective, current, or past) and the institution. 

One of the most significant differences in expectations between past and future cohorts is the digital component. In the past, students often came to universities with very little prior experience of IT and encountered new technologies for the first time.

While this is unlikely to now be the case, universities will nonetheless need to at least match the everyday digital experience of their learners, including expectations set at school. This will be particularly important in a context where the traditional university model of face-to-face teaching has been disrupted and students are anxious about how this would affect the quality of their experience.

Student population and level of comfort with digital

Research shows that assumptions about the digital native generations can be misleading and doubly so with universities with high proportions of students from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds. Student expectations will vary by population and universities need to develop an understanding of their student body and their level of digital capability. 

International student expectations

For universities with significant exposure to international markets awareness of cultural differences in the perceptions of digital technology will be key as overseas students may value particular elements of the experience more highly than others.

One platform vs many partners

One of the key trade-offs involved in redesigning the digital experience for students is choosing between the use of generalist vs specialist tools. The former often provides greater consistency and simplicity of implementation, whereas the latter may better meet individual needs while creating a fragmented IT environment.

Accessibility and reasonable adjustments

The experience of students with disabilities and those with additional needs is, thankfully, moving up the sector’s agenda. A greater role for digital has the potential to have massive positive impact, as the student experience can be designed from the ground up to be accessible by default (one example of this is the use of electronic textbooks via platforms designed to meet accessibility requirements).

However, this is an area that requires attention – otherwise the risk is that interactions are designed with ‘regular’ students in mind, making the experience more hostile and inaccessible to the rest of the student population.

Set clear expectations for what must be in place

As a first step, understand what components of the digital experience within universities will become non-negotiable over the next few years and prepare to put them in place quickly. Communicate the importance of these changes both from a regulatory and from a competitive perspective, and prepare to benchmark your institution against peers in the sector.

Heed the student voice

While you can’t predict what future generations of students will expect you can closely involve current students in designing courses and identifying learning outcomes to meet their expectations. Some universities have also run taster course sessions with school leavers to inform future curriculum design.

Remember that students don’t make decisions alone

Engage with parents of current and prospective students to understand their decision making process because they are often a significant influence on student choice of university. School outreach was one of the activities most disrupted by the coronavirus crisis – consider what engagement with schools and teachers will look like in a more digital environment.

The digital campus will be as central to student experience in the next decade as the physical campus has been up until now. Universities have tended to rely on physical proximity afforded by the campus to ensure a basic level of engagement.

For many, the traditional campus experience has been a massive selling point. This point of view risks downplaying the experience of marginalised groups such as commuter students, carers, online learners, etc. This challenge has become particularly evident in the light of the coronavirus crisis. 

When a campus model cannot be taken for granted, many universities may need to re-evaluate how they deliver value to domestic and international students if they spend little to no time physically present.

The real opportunity here is to leverage digital technology in ways that recreate and build on the campus experience while affording students’ a full choice of pace and place of learning. Decisions made around the use of campus facilities will have significant implications on the university cost base as well as its sense of place and connection to the local community.

Type of campus

Different decisions will be required based on the current role of the campus as well as their number (single vs satellite), location (city-centre vs standalone) and student accommodation arrangements.

Many universities will consider converting teaching spaces into other uses and will need to identify opportunities for providing hands-on experience of practical subjects, even if a course is delivered largely online.

Financial position and scale of investment required

Capital spend and maintenance are among the largest outlays and the university’s ability to make changes will be constrained by the strength of their financial position. However, there may be opportunities to significantly reduce costs or generate additional revenue through different uses of available space.

Ways of working and staff experience 

While most conversations about the campus focus on the student experience, the shift to remote working in professional services as well as teaching and learning is likely to have an effect on future plans. Universities will need to consider how they utilise existing space to create the best staff experience and enable new ways of working. Another important consideration is the ability of staff to build rapport with students if opportunities for face-to-face interaction are limited. 

Role of research

Research intensive universities will also need to consider to what extent physical laboratory spaces as well as archives can and should be moved into the digital space. Universities will be aware that research spaces are also key to many teaching and learning activities and making the best out of the research based university to improve the student experience.

Focus on the opportunities

Increased attention on the digital campus has a number of advantages compared to the traditional model. For example, spaces previously used by lecture theatres and physical means of scaling delivery can potentially be repurposed for high value activities linked to the university mission such as employer hubs or shared curriculum spaces where online and campus based students can work together.

Start at the drawing board

Running workshops that encourage staff, students, and other stakeholders to articulate what is important to them about the physical campus and inspire blue sky thinking on how this can be moved into the digital space. 

Universities face an increasingly competitive landscape in the international as well as domestic market. In order to maintain their advantage or improve their position they need to clearly articulate what if any role digital technology plays in brand differentiation.

Effective use of digital technology, particularly in marketing functions, can open up new markets, whether international students, online learners, or corporate employees looking to improve their skills.

Furthermore, for some universities, particularly those established more recently, a superior digital experience may become a new area for differentiation against competitors establishing a reputation for being innovative and forward thinking.

This will be particularly valuable if coupled with strong data insights into student outcomes, employability and student satisfaction, with annual student experience surveys providing a valuable benchmark, such as:

• Student academic experience survey (SAES) report
• UK engagement survey (UKES)
• Postgraduate taught experience survey (PTES)

Unique selling proposition

Traditional, established brands will see less benefit from digital as a differentiator – and in fact in some cases their USP may be explicitly focused on face to face interaction, and this liable.

The benefits for them are likely to be around operational efficiency and a less frustrating digital experience for students and staff. For up and coming universities there is a potential opportunity to position themselves as digitally savvy which may appeal to particular student populations.

Differentiation from other online offerings

Universities considering offering online degrees should explore which subject areas offer the most opportunities for growth and align well with the institution’s strengths. For example, there are fewer degrees being offered in practice-based STEM subjects as opposed to MBA degrees.

Non-academic experiences

The potential brand upsides of effective use of digital are not limited to teaching and learning. There are significant opportunities to stand out within the sector by embracing transformational online experiences for students and staff: participation in global networks, engagement with authentic professional communities, contributing to massive open research projects. 

Carry out marketing analysis

To identify the greatest opportunities, open and honest conversations with current and prospective students and staff are key. By understanding their requirements and aspirations, universities can adapt the digital experience to meet the needs of their service users.

Collect data, not anecdotes

There is a lack of robust data on how digitization affects student outcomes, research outputs, staff wellbeing and so on. Having a clear understanding of the specific benefits of digital will help craft a more convincing narrative to support brand differentiation.

Consider both opportunities and risks of digital

For some institutions, a greater role for digital (for example, in the delivery of courses) may present a risk rather than an opportunity, either internally, by undermining the existing USP, or by creating greater competition. In all likelihood, a great digital experience will be required in some areas even if it is not in teaching – for example, by making the application process seamless, pleasant, and personalised.

There is a significant mismatch in the amount of investment going into physical infrastructure vs digital technology, anecdotally 10:1. Given the increasing importance of digital to achieving university missions this ratio will need to shift.

The state of the university’s IT infrastructure today

Not every university has been strategic with their digital investment over the past decade and many struggle with significant legacy issues and costs. Senior executive teams will need to identify where this presents barriers to the long term vision and what areas will require upfront investment early on in the process of implementing the strategy.

Accounting and procurement rules

The scale of investment required to support the strategy is likely to exceed what the universities normally spend on new IT systems which may lead to push back from governing bodies and other stakeholders.

For large projects, this is being tackled by changing accounting rules so that investment in IT systems is treated as capital spend and depreciated over decades. Similar principles could be to software spend in aggregate, for example total annual Software-as-a-Service costs (to account for subscription-like pricing models, which are more common among startups).

Universities could also review how they procure software from SMEs, so that large tenders are not prohibitive for startups to participate in.

Carry out financial analysis to understand current spend on IT and benchmark against the sector

Having a clear view on how much the university is investing in IT and what proportion of it goes into maintenance vs new systems would allow you to establish a benchmark of IT spend. 

Establish clear success criteria for digital investment

Introducing the same level of planning around IT infrastructure as currently happens in physical estates is required in order to persuade stakeholders of the lasting value of those investments.

Clear ROI indicators would support the business case for continued investment into digital technology.

Many universities name legacy IT as a significant barrier that diverts time and money away from innovation opportunities. By considering this question you can encourage the blue sky thinking required to reimagine the capability model for the next decade, so it is fully aligned with your long term vision and meets the needs of students and staff. 

A number of challenger universities not hampered by the legacy issues have the opportunity to start fresh with systems that are fit for purpose. In particular, they pursue an ‘ecosystem’ approach that encourages the use of dedicated software systems for specific purposes (as opposed to a single large system trying to meet a broad set of needs).

By addressing this question you can identify opportunities to match their pace of innovation and quality of experience.

Where to innovate and where to follow

Different universities should have different levels of risk tolerance for different components of their overall digital landscape. They will identify different opportunities for all out innovation vs areas where they will take a more traditional approach and avoid products that have not been validated by the majority of the market. This will depend on institutional priorities and financial position.

Single vs multiple tools

In re-imagining the capability model universities need to consider whether functions should be covered by a small number of large systems, or a larger variety of dedicated tools. This will involve trade-offs around cost, implementation complexity, user experience, and security and data privacy.

Barriers to implementation

Universities should consider what factors would make implementation of re-imagining the capability model difficult or impossible as a way to identify future challenges in integrating new systems into an existing environment. 

Create a capability map and identify gaps

Adapt and simplify your existing map or start from scratch using examples from UCISA and HolonIQ as prompts. Involve students and staff in the exercise to understand what challenges they face with IT systems today and particular areas of inefficiency.

Adopt a differentiated risk approach

Decide in which IT areas you want to lead the sector in digital innovation and therefore are prepared to accept higher levels of risk and which areas require a more traditional, low risk approach. This will depend on institutional strengths and priorities.

By one popular analogy, data is the new oil. Like oil, data has little value until it can be extracted, refined and distributed to consumers – in this case, decision-makers – at the right time, right place, and in the right form to power their missions.

Successful digital transformation is fuelled by the effective use of data, yet the higher education sector has on the whole been slow to unlock the value of institutional data as a strategic asset.

The technology now exists to connect the variety of applications used within the university, where the IT landscape tends to be more fragmented than in the enterprise. Replacing these siloed ‘information systems’ with intelligent information networks will enable highly personalised engagement with students and staff, individualised experiences, and actionable strategic intelligence.

Rate of data proliferation and related regulations

The amount of data in the world now doubles within just two years. Lower storage costs, faster networks, and better tools to extract value from data will continue this upward trajectory. At the same time, regulations such as GDPR require rethinking how some data is stored, used, presented, and (in some cases) redacted.

Forming an overarching institutional strategy around data acquisition, management, and governance is a key waypoint along the path to digital transformation.

The spectrum from situational awareness to actionable intelligence

Gathering organisational intelligence was once largely about running reports to describe what had happened in hindsight. The advent of business intelligence tools in the 2000s delivered discoverable insights. Now, advanced analytics with augmented intelligence have the capacity to predict what will happen and prescribe actions which can be taken to cause an outcome – for example, increasing international student enrolment.

Becoming a data-empowered organisation requires purposeful investment in both talent and tools, though shifting to a data-driven culture and mindset is the larger transformational challenge.

While the underlying analytics technology is complex, there is a growing emphasis on the tools’ usability for decision makers, enabling a new age for actionable strategic intelligence.

Interoperability

Increasingly, the specific information systems used by the university matter less than whether a system can be made interoperable, so that it may easily contribute its unique value (capabilities and data) to an intelligent ‘information network’. Combining systems together with ‘intelligent plumbing’ – unlocking the flow of data between them – creates entirely new value streams.

For example, a highly personalised digital front-end experience provided to a prospective student may be underpinned by dozens of backend systems working together without exposing the seams between those systems.

Such an interoperable systems approach is inherently more agile and adaptable to support future strategy changes and business models, but does require significant upfront planning.

Consider investing in institutional intelligence first

While digital transformation is a long journey, targeted early investments in analytics can provide shorter paths to high value insights, and the intelligence gained can be used as an accelerant for transformation.

Start with the imperative

Many data projects get stuck by attacking challenges too broadly. Modern analytics tools can be deployed relatively quickly, with minimal cost relative to value. Determine the key facts and insights that would be required to know if key strategies are proving effective. 

By narrowing the problem set, the scope of the technical challenge is reduced and time to value accelerates. Leaders will quickly know how success is being measured, which is a great start towards forming a data-driven culture.

Place stakeholders at the centre

Universities serve many stakeholders and a wealth of missions. Although they are human-centric enterprises, the sector’s IT systems have traditionally been designed and built from the “inside-out”, serving the institution’s operational needs first, and only then creating transactional touchpoints for stakeholders to participate in those processes.

Human-centric design works ‘outside-in’, starting with a vision of the optimal experience, then designing the technology to enable that experience with data. Critically, human-centric design must include greater transparency and agency for individuals, especially students, around how their data will be used. as data privacy concerns multiply alongside data proliferation.

Going further, technology has advanced to the point where highly personalised experiences can be delivered at scale. Increasingly, enterprises view the digital experiences they provide as their primary differentiator.

Consumer market leaders such as Netflix, Apple, or Uber apply data-driven decisions and provide dynamic experiences based on an individual consumer's information. Applying these same design principles to higher education can transform that way that our stakeholders experience learning, teaching, research, and professional services.