Marking now over...
As a Oxford alumus I was rather alarmed to read last month the THE article: Oxford told to address fears over 'excessive' student workloads.
I thought that was what you signed up for. Lots of work, lots of detailed feedback, being pushed way out of your confort zone. It is an important part of developing into the best person you can be - and isn't that what universities should be about?
And that is why I am concerned. This follows on from petitions in some US inversities for a reduction in workload for 'activism'. But given some of the rather violent antics that passes for student activism over the pond, workloads could well benefit from perhaps raising in order to keep the peace.
My advice in response to the QAA, is for the university to enact some policy aimed at cutting off the tail of the tutorial workload. Clearly a few tutors are lettiing the side down.
Seriously as a student with at best so-so prior social capital (son of a tradesman), I was grateful of the hard currency that a difficult degree in a prestigeous university gave me.
Most of the students I've taught were not blessed with high prior social
capital. They needed the encouragement and push to develop their knowledge and skills. And the reassurance that the
time they invested with us would bear fruit. I still fondly remember meeting many of them at graduation, when they shook my hands, thanking us for helping them get jobs with Google, Microsoft and Accentre.
Pushing students to become the best they can be I would say is a kep part of what we do. High social capital students may still be able to do well if they stay within their comfort zones, but not all students are in such a happy position. We abdicate our responsibilities in HE if we do not do this.
I will close with a final point that there is an informal contract between universities and past, present and future students. All in reality work together to estabish and preserve the reputation and credibity of the degree they that take; as at the end of day it is the quality of the graduates that sustains a university's reputation. This hard work should not be squandered.
Monday, 15 August 2016
Wednesday, 22 June 2016
Don't worry, give value...
A break from marking projects...
The HE press and lobbying groups are getting in a lather over referendum this week. And before that there is the usual rather undue focus on policy and lobbying with the state (in its widest sense) as the primary actor.
I just can't get away from the feeling that we have missed the point and have been for a long while.
Yes, we exist in a regulated industry. Yes, the world does not owe us a living. But we seem to forget that the reason why the UK HE sector does well is because we actually do deliver value to those we educate and do research with.
UK universities have become successful because they done this (and government has not got in the way THAT excessively). No matter what the imposed market structures may have been the research and teaching offer in the UK is sufficently strong for students, organisations and researchers to come across the world to engage with us (and often pay serious money for this).
Whatever the structure and policy of the state (in its widest sense), it is how we ensure that we keep providing value to our stakeholders that counts. The sector is full of committed and talented people who will find a way to make scholarship pay the bills.
We've had universities survive and thrive over a number of historical shocks for that reason. The sector has shown a remarkable capacity for reinvetion. We can continue to do so whatever happens, despite any shocks, so long as we focus on why UK HE has been successful up to now.
Like the economy in general, if you can offer something that gives real value to others, then they will come. We will do well to focus on that, and ask the state to allow us to do that.
We would also do well to help incolate this mindset into our students, so we can help them realise their potential when they become our alumni.
The HE press and lobbying groups are getting in a lather over referendum this week. And before that there is the usual rather undue focus on policy and lobbying with the state (in its widest sense) as the primary actor.
I just can't get away from the feeling that we have missed the point and have been for a long while.
Yes, we exist in a regulated industry. Yes, the world does not owe us a living. But we seem to forget that the reason why the UK HE sector does well is because we actually do deliver value to those we educate and do research with.
UK universities have become successful because they done this (and government has not got in the way THAT excessively). No matter what the imposed market structures may have been the research and teaching offer in the UK is sufficently strong for students, organisations and researchers to come across the world to engage with us (and often pay serious money for this).
Whatever the structure and policy of the state (in its widest sense), it is how we ensure that we keep providing value to our stakeholders that counts. The sector is full of committed and talented people who will find a way to make scholarship pay the bills.
We've had universities survive and thrive over a number of historical shocks for that reason. The sector has shown a remarkable capacity for reinvetion. We can continue to do so whatever happens, despite any shocks, so long as we focus on why UK HE has been successful up to now.
Like the economy in general, if you can offer something that gives real value to others, then they will come. We will do well to focus on that, and ask the state to allow us to do that.
We would also do well to help incolate this mindset into our students, so we can help them realise their potential when they become our alumni.
Thursday, 9 June 2016
Academics ARE biased (but that's usually OK)
It was with interest that I read in the Times Higher Education an interestiing article exploring bias in EU-funded public policy-related professors when speaking about Brexit.
And it lead me to think - well of course. But that is not necessarily a bad thing.
I doubt if anyone really wants to make a career in what they do not believe in. As they are only human, they do have a point of view and it will leak out even if they are trying to be neutral. Of course, the funding system may (and I would argue does) distort the civil discourse in higher education on a more systemic basis. But to dismiss an individual on that alone would be wrong - that would be an ad homineum attack.
We just need to know where the argument is coming from and what outside influences may be in play (as in common in medical research). Then people can make up their own mind who or what they believe.
And making people to be able to make up their own minds about something (even if one may not agree with it) is surely what we working in higher education are about..
We can never remove bias, but for universities to maintain their role as a neutral space they can be transparent.
The article also notes the efforts of the academics concerned not to abuse their position.
And for those reasons I really see no problem in the situation that the article covers. What worries me are academic and orther 'independent' reports where the funding and influences are not in the open. I am unsure that the Brexit debate has been free of those.
And it lead me to think - well of course. But that is not necessarily a bad thing.
I doubt if anyone really wants to make a career in what they do not believe in. As they are only human, they do have a point of view and it will leak out even if they are trying to be neutral. Of course, the funding system may (and I would argue does) distort the civil discourse in higher education on a more systemic basis. But to dismiss an individual on that alone would be wrong - that would be an ad homineum attack.
We just need to know where the argument is coming from and what outside influences may be in play (as in common in medical research). Then people can make up their own mind who or what they believe.
And making people to be able to make up their own minds about something (even if one may not agree with it) is surely what we working in higher education are about..
We can never remove bias, but for universities to maintain their role as a neutral space they can be transparent.
The article also notes the efforts of the academics concerned not to abuse their position.
And for those reasons I really see no problem in the situation that the article covers. What worries me are academic and orther 'independent' reports where the funding and influences are not in the open. I am unsure that the Brexit debate has been free of those.
Monday, 6 June 2016
How to burn an opportunity for universities to shine...
Marking can be time-consuming - but at least a break! And a chance to catch up on emails.
I received a rather distrubing email from one of my former universities. Since it is an open letter, I have no qualms about posting a link to it.
In summary, it is an open letter signed by the Principal and their Students Association President. It makes that case that the university gets a lot of EU funding and that Brexit would make this uncertain, so alums should think about this when voting.
A theme I will be likely to come back to again and again is the idea of the university as a 'neutral space'. Another is the corrupting influence of the state on the ideals of the university.
Now the role of the Students Association is a different matter. But for the University to have signed this off, I think was ill-advised.
First it gives an impression that the only reason that the university cares about the referendum is its funding stream. Wider aspects such as informing the debate in society are demoted.
Second, there is a danger that the Universty will alienate or further distance stakeholders, who may be more firmly in the leave camp.
Third, I cannot see that this letter would not have a 'chilling effect' on a free and open debate. Publically disagreeing with a stated position of the university will inevitably make some people pause for thoughr. Yes, there is a lot of softening language in the letter, but it is taking a position,
The first of the two are reputational. As an alumus I am not happy, but the University's reputation is its own to manage.
The final goes against what I believe universities are there for. What this letter loses sight of is that the university has a wider role in providing a neutral space for debate. The Brexit argument is also not really economic, it is really about issues of national vision and governance. The letter mentions this as an afterthought (in a way that could lead one to suspect that the 'debates' will be aimed to influence an agenda rather than get people thinking through all sides of the argument).
The above said, I would be a bad person to ask for a donation in the near future.
I received a rather distrubing email from one of my former universities. Since it is an open letter, I have no qualms about posting a link to it.
In summary, it is an open letter signed by the Principal and their Students Association President. It makes that case that the university gets a lot of EU funding and that Brexit would make this uncertain, so alums should think about this when voting.
A theme I will be likely to come back to again and again is the idea of the university as a 'neutral space'. Another is the corrupting influence of the state on the ideals of the university.
Now the role of the Students Association is a different matter. But for the University to have signed this off, I think was ill-advised.
First it gives an impression that the only reason that the university cares about the referendum is its funding stream. Wider aspects such as informing the debate in society are demoted.
Second, there is a danger that the Universty will alienate or further distance stakeholders, who may be more firmly in the leave camp.
Third, I cannot see that this letter would not have a 'chilling effect' on a free and open debate. Publically disagreeing with a stated position of the university will inevitably make some people pause for thoughr. Yes, there is a lot of softening language in the letter, but it is taking a position,
The first of the two are reputational. As an alumus I am not happy, but the University's reputation is its own to manage.
The final goes against what I believe universities are there for. What this letter loses sight of is that the university has a wider role in providing a neutral space for debate. The Brexit argument is also not really economic, it is really about issues of national vision and governance. The letter mentions this as an afterthought (in a way that could lead one to suspect that the 'debates' will be aimed to influence an agenda rather than get people thinking through all sides of the argument).
The above said, I would be a bad person to ask for a donation in the near future.
Friday, 20 May 2016
This should worry you...
I've been thinking about blogging again, especially regards concerns such as the creeping power of the state in higher education and how universities are buying into this (and not for the reasons that the Islington Guardian reading set and professional left wingers would have you believe).
But you know, other stuff got in the way (contracts, travel)...
So this article 'THE: Higher education bill seeks powerful Office for Students'.worries me greatly and disturbed my morning cup of coffee.
The article outlines the Higher Education and Research Bill 2016-17. The part that alarmed me was:
The issue here is HEI autonomy and the levers that the state can use/abuse to align HEIs with its agenda. It is supposed to be hard to remove degree awarding powers, as that is a protection for HEIs against the state.
Now the state does have a legititmate say in how any monies it gives to HEIs are spent. That is covered by the contracts universties enter into (e.g. the HEFCE Financial Memorandum or Research Grants). A university is free to decide not to enter into them (eg.Buckingham).
Now in the case of private HEIs this is less of an issue as they do not typically take UK students or research grants.
But both types of HEI take international students and QAA inspections are a condition of their UKVI licences.
So an HEI is policed to ensure that it is performing its educational duties and public monies are spent for their intend purposes. For a public university, protracted loss of the ability to take overseas students can be a major blow (London Met, anyone). For a private HEI it would likely shut it down in short order as few have no other viable business model.
In any case, there would be accountablity through the courts to ensure that ministers are acting within the powers given to them by Parliament
The question is: why would the state legitmately need more than the above?
Also were degree awarding powers to be removed from HEIs, who should do it? There has been an increasing democratic deficit over the last 20 years of the increasing use of secondary legistation where decisions are taken away for Parliament and give it to ministers or delegated bodies. This is such an example.
It could be too easy to bully and gag HEIs. If an HEI was obviously not upholding academic standards, then it would be no issue in the hardest case getting Parliament to vote an Act enabling removal of powers as would be the case now for Chartered Universities. So why make it easier?
In short, the proposals seem to be overly powerful. It is unclear why these powers are needed outside of making it tidier for ministers or civil servants. But at what cost in the future?
I will be reading the Act and the surrounding literature in the coming weeks. At first glance it reads as a change of structures and if (more) student finance changes are not in the frame it may pass the public by. But such structural changes can soften up change for a less obvious agenda.
That is what worries me.
But you know, other stuff got in the way (contracts, travel)...
So this article 'THE: Higher education bill seeks powerful Office for Students'.worries me greatly and disturbed my morning cup of coffee.
The article outlines the Higher Education and Research Bill 2016-17. The part that alarmed me was:
"The OfS [Office for Students] would also have the ability to revoke an institution’s right to call itself a university, even if that right was granted by Royal Charter."Just in case one were to look at that in disbelief, the wording of the draft Bill is as follows:
"43 Variation or revocation of other authorisations to grant degrees etc
(1) The OfS may by order vary or revoke an authorisation given to an English
higher education provider or an English further education provider—
(a) by or under an Act of Parliament, other than under section 40(1) of this
Act, or
(b) by Royal Charter, to grant taught awards, research awards or foundation degrees.
(2) That is the case even if the authorisation was given for an indefinite period.The journalists seem to have their facts straight here. In short, the new OfS formed by this bill could revoke Cambridge University's Royal Charter without recourse to Parliament (and even an Oxford graduate would not wish this upon them).
The issue here is HEI autonomy and the levers that the state can use/abuse to align HEIs with its agenda. It is supposed to be hard to remove degree awarding powers, as that is a protection for HEIs against the state.
Now the state does have a legititmate say in how any monies it gives to HEIs are spent. That is covered by the contracts universties enter into (e.g. the HEFCE Financial Memorandum or Research Grants). A university is free to decide not to enter into them (eg.Buckingham).
Now in the case of private HEIs this is less of an issue as they do not typically take UK students or research grants.
But both types of HEI take international students and QAA inspections are a condition of their UKVI licences.
So an HEI is policed to ensure that it is performing its educational duties and public monies are spent for their intend purposes. For a public university, protracted loss of the ability to take overseas students can be a major blow (London Met, anyone). For a private HEI it would likely shut it down in short order as few have no other viable business model.
In any case, there would be accountablity through the courts to ensure that ministers are acting within the powers given to them by Parliament
The question is: why would the state legitmately need more than the above?
Also were degree awarding powers to be removed from HEIs, who should do it? There has been an increasing democratic deficit over the last 20 years of the increasing use of secondary legistation where decisions are taken away for Parliament and give it to ministers or delegated bodies. This is such an example.
It could be too easy to bully and gag HEIs. If an HEI was obviously not upholding academic standards, then it would be no issue in the hardest case getting Parliament to vote an Act enabling removal of powers as would be the case now for Chartered Universities. So why make it easier?
In short, the proposals seem to be overly powerful. It is unclear why these powers are needed outside of making it tidier for ministers or civil servants. But at what cost in the future?
I will be reading the Act and the surrounding literature in the coming weeks. At first glance it reads as a change of structures and if (more) student finance changes are not in the frame it may pass the public by. But such structural changes can soften up change for a less obvious agenda.
That is what worries me.
Monday, 2 November 2015
Bloggage Elsewhere: AUA Netherlands/Belgium Study Tour
Again, life has been more interesting than blogging. However for those interested in international higher education will find the blog of the AUA Netherlands/Belgium Study Tour (which I am helping with) of interest.
http://auadutch2015.blogspot.co.uk/
http://auadutch2015.blogspot.co.uk/
Monday, 13 April 2015
Bloggage Elsewhere: AUA Poland Study Tour
I have been dormant - will write more another time. However I am coordinating the AUA's Study Tour of Poland, which has its own blog:
http://auapoland2015.blogspot.co.uk/
Sunday, 14 October 2012
I'm back...
This blog has been quiet this year as I took a career break to travel the world. All I can say is that the experience was in many ways life-changing.
It was also a strange experience to watch the effects of a major funding reform in UK universities from afar. I am not sure we will fully understand the effects for a long time yet.
I am still very much concerned about how we can achieve a productive relationship between universities and the information professions as well wider issues in HE management and policy.
It has also made me think think very deeply about how universities could better prepare students for professional life without becoming training factories (which would be highly counterproductive).
Now I am back, the plan is to freelance in higher education. So I am available for consultancy and interim roles, from both the academic and professional management perspectives.
I am also available to undertake assignments in the wider private and public sector to help them create better, more productive relationships with universities.
For details, please see my LinkedIn page (see sidebar).
PS. I have reverted the title of the blog to its original title which best fits its wider focus.
It was also a strange experience to watch the effects of a major funding reform in UK universities from afar. I am not sure we will fully understand the effects for a long time yet.
I am still very much concerned about how we can achieve a productive relationship between universities and the information professions as well wider issues in HE management and policy.
It has also made me think think very deeply about how universities could better prepare students for professional life without becoming training factories (which would be highly counterproductive).
Now I am back, the plan is to freelance in higher education. So I am available for consultancy and interim roles, from both the academic and professional management perspectives.
I am also available to undertake assignments in the wider private and public sector to help them create better, more productive relationships with universities.
For details, please see my LinkedIn page (see sidebar).
PS. I have reverted the title of the blog to its original title which best fits its wider focus.
Monday, 5 December 2011
Give the Gift of the IBM Enterprise Computing Scholarship this Christmas
City University London's Master of Information Leadership is offering a scholarship for April 2012 entry in conjunction with IBM,
http://www.city.ac.uk/interdisciplinary-city/centre-for-information-leadership/ibm-enterprise-computing-scholarship
Congratulations to both David Chan for securing this and IBM for having the foresight and vision to support the MIL and City's efforts to support the CIO community in this way.
Computer Weekly is again the media partner for the MIL scholarship; I enjoyed working with them immensely when I was at City.
Read the webpage for details and pass onto someone who you'd think make a great future CIO and help the IT profession get the future leadership it deserves.
http://www.city.ac.uk/interdisciplinary-city/centre-for-information-leadership/ibm-enterprise-computing-scholarship
Congratulations to both David Chan for securing this and IBM for having the foresight and vision to support the MIL and City's efforts to support the CIO community in this way.
Computer Weekly is again the media partner for the MIL scholarship; I enjoyed working with them immensely when I was at City.
Read the webpage for details and pass onto someone who you'd think make a great future CIO and help the IT profession get the future leadership it deserves.
In the Press: Supporting CAS, PASC = Skills Doublethink, PQA...
It's amazing how busy you can get when you are no longer working! But I'm now on top of the post-work arrangements and getting ready to travel the world in mid-January. So now would be a good time to review and catch up on press coverage I've been involved in over the last few months.
The first is an article in ComputerWorldUK that I'm an occasional contributor to. It's a call to support the excellent Computing at School group.
http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/management-briefing/2011/10/eric-schmidt-stated-the-problem-heres-how-we-can-fix-it/index.htm
There's little I can add to this article, except to reaffirm that supporting education is one of the most important things that the IT profession can do to secure its long-term future. Computing at School needs and deserves our full support.
The second was a response to the Public Accounts Select Committee (PASC) report on waste and overspend in public-sector IT. I wrote a byline article for PublicTechnology.net.
http://www.publictechnology.net/sector/central-gov/viewpoint-do-we-get-government-ict-suppliers-we-deserve
In the context of the PASC report I was also quoted in the following article making broadly similar points.
http://news.techeye.net/business/government-it-cartel-slammed
One reoccurring theme is that the public sector needs to up-skill its IT functions at the mid-career level. In this regard the Master of Information Leadership is clearly of its time. However, until I see proper investment in this area, I doubt we can take any claims of action on this problem seriously. Complaining about but not investing in your workforce is doublethink, irrespective of whether it is in the private or public sectors.
NB. I think that assuming that the private sector is immune from these issues of waste, weak talent management or mal-investment would be a mistake.
Third I had the pleasure of being invited to blog for the Guardian Higher Education Network on Post-Qualification Admissions (i.e. applying to UCAS after A-level results are known).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2011/sep/27/post-qualification-applications-applying-university
One point I was like to add is that I support PQA not because it is the easy or convenient thing to do, but because it is the right thing to do for applicants. The moral dimension of the role of universities is an under-considered aspect of the admissions narrative, but essential to their long-term sustainability.
I was also mentioned in the launch of City's undergraduate scholarships that I'm sure will help attract more talented students to their computing undergraduate programme; something that I am immensely proud to have been involved with.
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/careers/3311390/city-university-offers-computing-scholarships-for-undergraduates/
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/enterprise/3311734/city-university-offers-computing-scholarships-for-undergraduates/
I've had a great time doing press while at City University London and especially working with the consummately professional Luke Nava, the School of Informatics' press officer.
Any press from now on will be in a private capacity or for a future job. Watch this space.
The first is an article in ComputerWorldUK that I'm an occasional contributor to. It's a call to support the excellent Computing at School group.
http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/management-briefing/2011/10/eric-schmidt-stated-the-problem-heres-how-we-can-fix-it/index.htm
There's little I can add to this article, except to reaffirm that supporting education is one of the most important things that the IT profession can do to secure its long-term future. Computing at School needs and deserves our full support.
The second was a response to the Public Accounts Select Committee (PASC) report on waste and overspend in public-sector IT. I wrote a byline article for PublicTechnology.net.
http://www.publictechnology.net/sector/central-gov/viewpoint-do-we-get-government-ict-suppliers-we-deserve
In the context of the PASC report I was also quoted in the following article making broadly similar points.
http://news.techeye.net/business/government-it-cartel-slammed
One reoccurring theme is that the public sector needs to up-skill its IT functions at the mid-career level. In this regard the Master of Information Leadership is clearly of its time. However, until I see proper investment in this area, I doubt we can take any claims of action on this problem seriously. Complaining about but not investing in your workforce is doublethink, irrespective of whether it is in the private or public sectors.
NB. I think that assuming that the private sector is immune from these issues of waste, weak talent management or mal-investment would be a mistake.
Third I had the pleasure of being invited to blog for the Guardian Higher Education Network on Post-Qualification Admissions (i.e. applying to UCAS after A-level results are known).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network/blog/2011/sep/27/post-qualification-applications-applying-university
One point I was like to add is that I support PQA not because it is the easy or convenient thing to do, but because it is the right thing to do for applicants. The moral dimension of the role of universities is an under-considered aspect of the admissions narrative, but essential to their long-term sustainability.
I was also mentioned in the launch of City's undergraduate scholarships that I'm sure will help attract more talented students to their computing undergraduate programme; something that I am immensely proud to have been involved with.
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/careers/3311390/city-university-offers-computing-scholarships-for-undergraduates/
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/enterprise/3311734/city-university-offers-computing-scholarships-for-undergraduates/
I've had a great time doing press while at City University London and especially working with the consummately professional Luke Nava, the School of Informatics' press officer.
Any press from now on will be in a private capacity or for a future job. Watch this space.
Friday, 28 October 2011
Last Day at City: 13 Great Years!
This is my last day at City University London. I've decided to take a career break and travel the world.
Almost two years ago my mother died and I promised her that I’d not work so hard (being an academic, especially at Head of Department level is an all-consuming activity). A year on and I realised that I wasn’t making good on that promise and decided on reflection that I should spend some time on me while I am young enough to enjoy it.
I’ve had a great 13 years at City, and working with David Chan to establish the Centre for Information Leadership has been wonderful. I’d like to thank you all for your kind support of the Centre and ask you to continue to support David who will be leading it to bigger and better things.
The Master of Information Leadership (MIL) will I am sure flourish, and I must say it was one of best things I did at City and I hope it plays its part in securing the future of the IT profession. I'll still be one of its main supporters.
I am not sure what I'll be doing once I am back from my travels. This will be something I will leave until my return (but from October 2012 I'll be open to offers...:-)
I have been made an honorary visiting fellow at City and I will be continuing to blog on matters relevant to information leaders (and on the previous MIL weekends I have been involved in). Of course, I am no longer an employee of City University London so the disclaimer I have about speaking in a personal capacity now doubly applies.
So watch this space!
Sunday, 5 June 2011
Cake or Death: Or why the LSE doesn't understand economics!
I sometimes do understand why those outside academia seem to think we make bizzare decisions. After some recent pints with a colleague I was reminder of the very funny 'cake or death' sequence by Eddie Izzard - shown below.
As it says, the right choice between cake or death should be obvious. So who would choose death? It would appear that academia can sometimes choose death on principle.
Over that last few months universities have been announcing their fees under the new regime in 2012. The Daily Mash (warning: is a bit sweary) appears have some rather biting insights. It's actually not as a simple as that: high fees are a marker of quality, and finance is to maintain high levels of quality research-led teaching. To do the best for their students, it's a commonly held view that universities wish to do both.
The recent announcement of the London School of Economics's council and academic board to charge less than 9K is rather bizarre. They claim it is to send "a clear message that LSE welcomes students from all backgrounds". But I find it hard to see how it's in the interests of students to do this for the following reasons.
Anyway, I can't see how the LSE can from this decision get to the highest standards of academic excellence, unless they wish to not support poor students as best they can, strip-mine their international students (not sustainable, or even ethical IMHO) or seek donations of dubious providence (that will diminish further their reputation).
Cake or death anyone? Mine's a Death by Chocolate...:-)
As it says, the right choice between cake or death should be obvious. So who would choose death? It would appear that academia can sometimes choose death on principle.
Over that last few months universities have been announcing their fees under the new regime in 2012. The Daily Mash (warning: is a bit sweary) appears have some rather biting insights. It's actually not as a simple as that: high fees are a marker of quality, and finance is to maintain high levels of quality research-led teaching. To do the best for their students, it's a commonly held view that universities wish to do both.
The recent announcement of the London School of Economics's council and academic board to charge less than 9K is rather bizarre. They claim it is to send "a clear message that LSE welcomes students from all backgrounds". But I find it hard to see how it's in the interests of students to do this for the following reasons.
- They could use the maximum fee give bigger bursaries to the poor students, so they can focus on their studies without worrying about paying their bills.
- ...or god forbid, spend the money on better facilities, more quality contact time for students.
- It's a slap to the face for the international students (LSE is heavily internationalised) who already pay an awful lot - this decision can't but remove the last lingering doubts many of them have that they may be there as cash cows.
- A high price point usually is a signal of quality. I hope for the LSE's sake that its reputation is able to stand a price point lower than the vast majority of the Russell and 1994 group.
Anyway, I can't see how the LSE can from this decision get to the highest standards of academic excellence, unless they wish to not support poor students as best they can, strip-mine their international students (not sustainable, or even ethical IMHO) or seek donations of dubious providence (that will diminish further their reputation).
Cake or death anyone? Mine's a Death by Chocolate...:-)
Sunday, 22 May 2011
In the Press: Reflections on the NESTA Games Report
A catch up on my press writings. I occasionally write for ComputerWorld UK and I recently wrote on the NESTA report on skills in the games industry. Both the report and my article are worth a read IMHO.
As you can tell, I thought the report was a curate's egg. I found the idea that a sensible league table could be constructed particularly hilarious. I'd say the the largest barrier to the top 5-10% of C++ coding talent from universities going into games is them 'selling out' and taking the better pay and conditions in London's financial services industry. I know of one other leading London CS department that runs an annual games event to persuade their graduates not just to go to banks and consultancies.
Apart from acknowledging the ability of special interest groups to lobby government instead of addressing the problem from their own resources, it to me highlights the futility of trying to manage skills at all in central government as it appears to attract attempts to capture the agenda away from those who really matter - the students!
I suppose the games industry at least didn't ask for tax credits (again!). I find it hard to believe that you can ask for subsidy and say you are a vibrant industry contributing to growth at the same time. If they can't entice the top C++ coding talent to move from productive jobs in financial services without a subsidy, then that talent is better for society working for banks to build the economy. Markets work nicely that way - pay and conditions follow productivity.
The quote below from Frederic Bastiat in his essay 'Government' perhaps says all that needs to be said.
As I said in the article, attracting and developing talent is a problem that the games industry has to solve itself.
As you can tell, I thought the report was a curate's egg. I found the idea that a sensible league table could be constructed particularly hilarious. I'd say the the largest barrier to the top 5-10% of C++ coding talent from universities going into games is them 'selling out' and taking the better pay and conditions in London's financial services industry. I know of one other leading London CS department that runs an annual games event to persuade their graduates not just to go to banks and consultancies.
Apart from acknowledging the ability of special interest groups to lobby government instead of addressing the problem from their own resources, it to me highlights the futility of trying to manage skills at all in central government as it appears to attract attempts to capture the agenda away from those who really matter - the students!
I suppose the games industry at least didn't ask for tax credits (again!). I find it hard to believe that you can ask for subsidy and say you are a vibrant industry contributing to growth at the same time. If they can't entice the top C++ coding talent to move from productive jobs in financial services without a subsidy, then that talent is better for society working for banks to build the economy. Markets work nicely that way - pay and conditions follow productivity.
The quote below from Frederic Bastiat in his essay 'Government' perhaps says all that needs to be said.
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
As I said in the article, attracting and developing talent is a problem that the games industry has to solve itself.
Monday, 2 May 2011
'Metrics Puppies' or why Deming should be read by HE managers...
I've been reflecting on an interesting talk I attended at the IoE two months ago by Professor Rob Cuthbert called "Failing the Challenge of Institutional Evaluation: how and why managerialism flourishes". The talk and the discussion did miss an important point, alas...
An interesting anecdote was shared of a university with overall NSS scores not statistically significantly different from the norm. So instead of targeting the headline figure directly and cascading it aggressively down to the front line, they looked at the detailed responses and reviewed their practices in a considered way. Over the next few years the scores went up. But a few years later response was changed and ran using the management by objectives playbook - scores then back went down to where they were...
But this not just an HE issue - it illustrates the point that MBO can be dangerous.
Of course academics who can't teach shouldn't expect to be paid, but the vast majority want to do a good job. Interestingly there was the usual hand-wringing about managerialism in the discussion, but no concrete discussion of what an alternative would look like (apart from allowing academics to do as they please - quelle surprise?).
One name that was not mentioned was Deming - I guess engineering management isn't really in line with the overabundance of postmodernist or Marxist analyses of university management in the literature. To illustrate, the above situation could easily be retold in terms of his Red Bead Experiment. His proposal in essence is that the system of work determines most of the performance, so measurement is best used to understand how the system can be improved rather than aimed at exhorting the workforce to work harder/smarter/faster.
This applies to all sectors and arguably it is IMHO equally important in services as it is in manufacturing. For those interested in the debate between MBO and the more humanistic engineering management approach, Art Kleiner's 'Measures that Matter' article is an excellent introduction (albeit from an accounting viewpoint).
I close with by coining a new phrase: a 'metrics puppy' to describe the unthinking advocates of MBO. Those from the UK may have visions of the puppy that advertised toilet paper by chasing rolls of it with great energy. The blind chasing of measurements by making their transmission the object of management without understanding the work system is really no different - just not as cute.
PS. Posted using BlogPress from my iPad - so apologies if things go awry while I get used to it.
An interesting anecdote was shared of a university with overall NSS scores not statistically significantly different from the norm. So instead of targeting the headline figure directly and cascading it aggressively down to the front line, they looked at the detailed responses and reviewed their practices in a considered way. Over the next few years the scores went up. But a few years later response was changed and ran using the management by objectives playbook - scores then back went down to where they were...
But this not just an HE issue - it illustrates the point that MBO can be dangerous.
Of course academics who can't teach shouldn't expect to be paid, but the vast majority want to do a good job. Interestingly there was the usual hand-wringing about managerialism in the discussion, but no concrete discussion of what an alternative would look like (apart from allowing academics to do as they please - quelle surprise?).
One name that was not mentioned was Deming - I guess engineering management isn't really in line with the overabundance of postmodernist or Marxist analyses of university management in the literature. To illustrate, the above situation could easily be retold in terms of his Red Bead Experiment. His proposal in essence is that the system of work determines most of the performance, so measurement is best used to understand how the system can be improved rather than aimed at exhorting the workforce to work harder/smarter/faster.
This applies to all sectors and arguably it is IMHO equally important in services as it is in manufacturing. For those interested in the debate between MBO and the more humanistic engineering management approach, Art Kleiner's 'Measures that Matter' article is an excellent introduction (albeit from an accounting viewpoint).
I close with by coining a new phrase: a 'metrics puppy' to describe the unthinking advocates of MBO. Those from the UK may have visions of the puppy that advertised toilet paper by chasing rolls of it with great energy. The blind chasing of measurements by making their transmission the object of management without understanding the work system is really no different - just not as cute.
PS. Posted using BlogPress from my iPad - so apologies if things go awry while I get used to it.
Sunday, 20 February 2011
A Tale of Two CIOs (Saturday 2nd October 2010)
One aim of the Information Leader in Organisations module is to understand the differences and similarities in information leader roles in different organisations.
First, Chris Puttick, CIO of Oxford Archaeology presented on 'More with Less'. The charity sector is a great place to look for innovate solutions to provide great IT to a demanding (and often non-mainstream) user base with very little money. His talk invited the MIL students to think about what was impossible and lead to a very interesting discussion of the trade-off between cost-cutting and risk.
The contrast with the last speaker of the day couldn't be more start. Leon Schumacher, Group CIO of Novartis. He presented work he was a part of with the CIO Executive Council, a global CIO network. Their Future State CIO model is a principled analysis of CIO role and competencies. It examines the transitions required between functional IT roles and the transformation/strategic roles that information leaders seek. We are quite grateful that the CIO Executive Council allowed us use of this model as a basis for analysing a number of issues that arise during this module.
Though the companies and budgets they are worlds apart (in terms of budget, Leon's phone budget is probably larger than Chris' whole IT budget), what unites them is a passion and commitment to using information to make their organisations more effective and a broad skill-set that allows them to achieve this. The two speakers embodied that message splendidly.
First, Chris Puttick, CIO of Oxford Archaeology presented on 'More with Less'. The charity sector is a great place to look for innovate solutions to provide great IT to a demanding (and often non-mainstream) user base with very little money. His talk invited the MIL students to think about what was impossible and lead to a very interesting discussion of the trade-off between cost-cutting and risk.
The contrast with the last speaker of the day couldn't be more start. Leon Schumacher, Group CIO of Novartis. He presented work he was a part of with the CIO Executive Council, a global CIO network. Their Future State CIO model is a principled analysis of CIO role and competencies. It examines the transitions required between functional IT roles and the transformation/strategic roles that information leaders seek. We are quite grateful that the CIO Executive Council allowed us use of this model as a basis for analysing a number of issues that arise during this module.
Though the companies and budgets they are worlds apart (in terms of budget, Leon's phone budget is probably larger than Chris' whole IT budget), what unites them is a passion and commitment to using information to make their organisations more effective and a broad skill-set that allows them to achieve this. The two speakers embodied that message splendidly.
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
MIL: These are who I get to enjoy teaching...
Computer Weekly have profiled the first group of Master of Information Leadership students in support of our scholarship competition - the article is here.
I have to say its been a joy to teach them. The teaching approach is really paying off and David and I are seeing the improvement in their academic work and their professional practice.
I'm looking forward to the April intake joining us!
I have to say its been a joy to teach them. The teaching approach is really paying off and David and I are seeing the improvement in their academic work and their professional practice.
I'm looking forward to the April intake joining us!
Sunday, 6 February 2011
Brief: Have I coined a phrase.....?
The concept of cultural maturity has come up in a number of modules on the Master of Information Leadership. There appears to be a plethora of maturity models ever since Crosby (1979), and most aren't that different). So I'd like to say we should recognise this orgy of identikit model construction with a new IT acronym (my proposal seems to have caught on with the MIL students, anyway)...
Looked on Google, and it drew a blank so I'm claiming it. Feel free to use it - but say it was me....:-)
Fame at last? Time will tell...
References
Crosby, Philip (1979). Quality is Free. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-014512-1.
YAMM = Yet Another Maturity Model
Looked on Google, and it drew a blank so I'm claiming it. Feel free to use it - but say it was me....:-)
Fame at last? Time will tell...
References
Crosby, Philip (1979). Quality is Free. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-014512-1.
Thursday, 20 January 2011
What does an MIL student look like?
We have been getting enquiries for the Master of Information Leadership and the Computer Weekly scholarship. This blogpost is an attempt to articulate what I see an MIL student looks like in more concrete terms. If this works I'd like to put something more 'official' on the Centre for Information Leadership website, where the entrance requirements are stated thus:
"You will normally be the possession of at least an upper second UK honours degree or equivalent. In addition you will have at least three years in an experienced business-facing information role (equivalent to SFIA 5/CITP), e.g. senior information manager, senior IT consultant.
If your first language is not English, you will be expected to present IELTS 7.0 or equivalent."
It is of course made more difficult by the 'title inflation' that is common in the IT industry. It is quite possible to be an 'IT manager' that does not manage any people and a small budget (e.g. in an SME). We are looking for people in an IT role with experience of line management and significant budgets (or the equivalent in consultancy and freelance roles). You can break this down in terms of hierarchy as follows:
Though we make use of the SFIA framework when we look at applications to the MIL, it can be somewhat abstract and I think something more concrete would be useful. So here are some (made up) example profiles of the kinds of students that would be suited to the Master of Information Leadership.
Of course, anyone is unsure or wishes to talk to me or David about whether the MIL is suitable for them - the invitation to discuss is here.
"You will normally be the possession of at least an upper second UK honours degree or equivalent. In addition you will have at least three years in an experienced business-facing information role (equivalent to SFIA 5/CITP), e.g. senior information manager, senior IT consultant.
If your first language is not English, you will be expected to present IELTS 7.0 or equivalent."
It is of course made more difficult by the 'title inflation' that is common in the IT industry. It is quite possible to be an 'IT manager' that does not manage any people and a small budget (e.g. in an SME). We are looking for people in an IT role with experience of line management and significant budgets (or the equivalent in consultancy and freelance roles). You can break this down in terms of hierarchy as follows:
- IT Directors/CIOs/CTOs (SFIA 7/FBCS) that wish to develop their skills and/or move to a board level role (or in consultant terms, senior partners).
- Their direct reports (SFIA 6) that could include enterprise architects, programme managers, heads of IT services, etc. (and equivalent interims and experienced senior consultants).
- Also in larger organisations (e.g. banks, supermarket chains, major consultancies) talented professionals at the level below (usually SFIA 5-6/CITP), say project managers, service managers, senior consultants.
Though we make use of the SFIA framework when we look at applications to the MIL, it can be somewhat abstract and I think something more concrete would be useful. So here are some (made up) example profiles of the kinds of students that would be suited to the Master of Information Leadership.
- Peter is an interim CIO with over 20 years experience in IT management working in a number of private and public sector organisations. Apart from a desire to develop his effectiveness further, he wishes to access the intellectual underpinnings of his role and be more active in the debates around his role, in a focused manner that an MBA would not. (SFIA 7)
- Jane is an enterprise architect for a FMCG company, reporting directly into the UK CIO and is looking to progress to an information leadership position herself. Originally a physicist she has worked in systems analysis and technology advisory role in the 12 years prior to her current position. As the company requires her to meet with managers across the UK, the weekend delivery in London is convenient. (SFIA 6)
- Sanjeev works in the UK as a key account manager for one of the large outsourcing firms. Educated at IIT he has spent the last 10 years rising via roles in service delivery and project management to be the direct interface with CIOs and IT directors in the retail sector. He wishes to move to a information leadership role himself and sees the MIL as helping gain the skills and networks to support this; the networking naturally being a benefit in his current role. (SFIA 5-6)
- Jeroen is an independent IT consultant based in Belgium of 15 years experience with an impressive client list. He operates mostly in the Benelux region and occasionally in the UK. The London location makes the MIL convenient for him and allows him to network and tap into the latest thinking and ideas in the information leadership space and access the academic evidence base. (SFIA 6)
- Mawusi is a VP IT Services of a financial services firm in the City looking after a large team and budget, but with heavy operational responsibilities; having worked up the ranks from a junior operations role 20 years ago. Though she has a reputation for operational excellence she wishes to move into a more strategic position and is attracted to the MIL's focus on the information leadership role and its balance of academic and professional development. (SFIA 6)
- Eleanor is a first-time CTO for a charity based in Cambridgeshire. Previously she had 10 years experience in a major IT consultancy firm. She is looking for a course that is focused on the disciplines that underpin her new role to help her be more effective, and looks forward to sharing experiences with her peers in other sectors; the specialised nature of the MIL allowing this in a way a general management masters would not. (SFIA 7).
- Sarah studied classics and entered the Civil Service fast stream as a generalist manager where she has acted over the last 8 years in a series of demanding management roles and is seen as a rising star. Four years ago she was transferred to the CIO's office of a government department reporting directly on information compliance and governance and has gained MBCS CITP status. The MIL interests her as it is an opportunity to gain the operational disciplines needed to progress onto the IT leadership team of the department. (strong SFIA 5)
- Jack is a CISO for an insurance firm in Edinburgh. Originally graduating with a computer science degree he started in specialist security technology roles but 12 years later his role has become strongly business focused. The MIL offers Jack an opportunity to broaden his role in the company's IT leadership and the option to move out of security. The weekend delivery appeals to Jack as he can easily commute to London for the 10 weekends a year needed. (SFIA 6)
- Mohson is a FBCS and IT Director of 8 years standing for a high-value manufacturing firm in the midlands that reports to the CFO. He sees IT as increasingly important to the business, but is having some difficulty in persuading the board. Mohson sees the MIL as an opportunity to get the broader background to transition IT leadership to the board and get exposure to the intellectual arguments needed to make the case for IT as a business enabler. (SFIA 7)
- Steven is the Deputy Director of Information at a large legal practice in Manchester. His team's responsibilities extends to legal library resources, information compliance/strategy and IT based information resources with a £2m per year budget. Steven originally studied history and then library science and is a Chartered member of CILIP. He sees the MIL as not only a route to advance his career but to engage with the wider cross-disciplinary intellectual issues the underpin the role of information in both organisations and wider society. (SFIA 6)
- Jasmine is an experienced project and programme manager and MBCS CITP. After graduating with a degree in information systems 12 years ago she since has gained a reputation of turning around failing projects at a number of organisations. Three years ago she went freelance. The MIL interests Jasmine as she wishes to move progress her career to the next level and the weekend delivery allows her to do this and maintain her ability to get work. (SFIA 6)
- Andrew is a programme manager for an expanding creative firm in Shoreditch. He entered the industry 11 years ago as a web programmer and quickly moved into team leader then project management positions across the digital creative sector in London. He is interested in the MIL given the centrality of information and innovation to the creative industries and would like to progress to a CTO position in the next generation of technological start-ups. (SFIA 6)
- Jessica is a senior information manager in the NHS. After graduate positions for a few years as a health librarian she moved to more information systems oriented positions. In the last 8 years she has been instrumental in a number of significant health information projects. She sees the MIL as a way of entering the charities sector as an information leader (SFIA 5-6).
Of course, anyone is unsure or wishes to talk to me or David about whether the MIL is suitable for them - the invitation to discuss is here.
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
The Master of Information Leadership's (not so) Secret Weapon...
The Master of Information Leadership differs from conventional MBAs (in the absence of anything better the main default option for aspiring information leaders) in a number of ways, apart from the focus of the course - that's a given.
The first is that we take a coaching approach to student support. At the professional level the MIL is pitched we are beyond the transmission of knowledge and concepts. There a few right answers at this level and instead judgment and the ability to critically evaluate the evidence base is needed (there's a reason for the board-level salaries!). So we aim to develop the academic skills that underpin this to a high level.
So between the weekends David Chan and I are available to support the students either remotely or sometimes face-to-face. As the MIL scales up in number, we'll be adding to this core team. I act as the academic coach, David as the professional coach. This is one of the aspects of the MIL that the students have found most beneficial to their learning.
This leads us onto the MIL's secret weapon: David Chan. I've been working with David for almost two years to set up the centre and the MIL - it's been a blast.
David was one of the UK's first board-level information leaders with expertise spanning the BBC, Provident, Razorfish to name a few. His professional expertise feeds into the course design throughout. David adds his experience to the lectures and syndicate tasks, either by a well-placed anecdote, a reference to relevant theory, or in the 'CIO Coda' where David brings all the activities of a weekend together and reflects with the students on how the issues raised over the weekend relate to the challenges that information leaders face.
If you can find a quality executive masters in any way relevant to CIOs that has an experienced information leader sitting in on the lectures on contributing to the discussions - we'd like to know! Ditto if you can find an MBA where a CEO/CFO sits in all the lectures...
Finally, students also get the mobile number of the course and centre directors - not something you usually get on an MBA! This is consistent with the MIL's philosophy of being a high-contact offering for a select intake of talented self-directed senior IT professionals, rather than being a high-volume commodity.
The first is that we take a coaching approach to student support. At the professional level the MIL is pitched we are beyond the transmission of knowledge and concepts. There a few right answers at this level and instead judgment and the ability to critically evaluate the evidence base is needed (there's a reason for the board-level salaries!). So we aim to develop the academic skills that underpin this to a high level.
So between the weekends David Chan and I are available to support the students either remotely or sometimes face-to-face. As the MIL scales up in number, we'll be adding to this core team. I act as the academic coach, David as the professional coach. This is one of the aspects of the MIL that the students have found most beneficial to their learning.
This leads us onto the MIL's secret weapon: David Chan. I've been working with David for almost two years to set up the centre and the MIL - it's been a blast.
David was one of the UK's first board-level information leaders with expertise spanning the BBC, Provident, Razorfish to name a few. His professional expertise feeds into the course design throughout. David adds his experience to the lectures and syndicate tasks, either by a well-placed anecdote, a reference to relevant theory, or in the 'CIO Coda' where David brings all the activities of a weekend together and reflects with the students on how the issues raised over the weekend relate to the challenges that information leaders face.
If you can find a quality executive masters in any way relevant to CIOs that has an experienced information leader sitting in on the lectures on contributing to the discussions - we'd like to know! Ditto if you can find an MBA where a CEO/CFO sits in all the lectures...
Finally, students also get the mobile number of the course and centre directors - not something you usually get on an MBA! This is consistent with the MIL's philosophy of being a high-contact offering for a select intake of talented self-directed senior IT professionals, rather than being a high-volume commodity.
Thursday, 13 January 2011
Master of Information Leadership: Computer Weekly Step-Up Scholarship
Do you know (or are you) a talented IT consultant, information manager, ITSM practitioner, enterprise architect, project/programme manager or an information professional in a business facing role that could be an information leader of tomorrow? Well here's your chance!
It's been a busy week! We have launched a scholarship for the April 2011 intake for the Master of Information Leadership in partnership with Computer Weekly. One talented professional can secure themselves a free place on the course, worth £30,000.
David Chan and I have enjoyed working with Computer Weekly over the last year in promoting the role of the information leader, particularly in regard to the CW500 club and so we're delighted to be working with them on the Step-Up scholarship.
The opening article from Computer Weekly can be found here.
The press release from City University London is here.
Details of the scholarship can be found here (or you could click the big banner ad on the top of this blog...:-).
I'll be continuing my blogging on the MIL weekends thus far. I hope this will be useful to anyone interested in joining us on the MIL.
For now, feel free to pass the word onto any talented professionals you know. Thank you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)