The
Virtualization of University Education:
Concepts,
Strategies and Business Models
Kelvin
W.
Instructional
Technology Forum,
Discussion
Paper #75, September 15-19, 2003.
http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper75/paper75.html
Contact
Details of Author:
Prof.
Kelvin W. Willoughby
Professor of
Management and Entrepreneurship
Gore School of Business
Westminster College
1840 South 1300 East
Salt Lake City, Utah 84105 USA
Phone:
+1-801-832-2636
Fax: +1-801-832-3106
Email: kwilloughby@westminstercollege.edu
http://people.westminstercollege.edu/faculty/kwilloughby/
Acknowledgements:
The
research for this publication was conducted by Prof. Willoughby during 2001 and
2002 as part of a larger research project of the Technical University of Munich,
on the topic of the “University of the Future” (Universitaet der Zukunft)
under the sponsorship of TumTech GmbH (Muenchen) and Degussa AG (Duesseldorf).
Thanks belong to Bernd Grohs and Monika Wieberger of TumTech, and Dr.
Joachim Semel of Degussa, for helpful discussions that contributed to the
conduct of the research.
Table
of Contents
Virtualization
-- the New Wave in University Education
What
is Virtual University Education?
Varieties
of Technological Virtualization
Varieties
of Geographical Virtualization
Varieties
of Organizational Virtualization
Some
General principles of the Virtual university
Elements
of Business Models for Virtualization
Strategic
Issues in Virtualizing University Education
Conclusion:
Managing the Virtualization Process
Abstract
In this paper I
contribute to the current debate on the adoption of virtual education practices
at universities by proposing that there are three separate but related modes of
educational virtualization: technological virtualization, geographical
virtualization and organizational virtualization. I argue that while each type
of virtualization can develop in its own right, independently of the others,
there are a number of practical forces at work that pressure most universities
to simultaneously combine more than one type of virtualization. The really
interesting challenge for educational managers and strategists is to discern
some general principles governing the optimal pattern of the relationships
between the three different types of virtualization. In taking the first step
towards addressing this challenge I outline some basic business principles
associated with the virtualization of university education. I conclude by
arguing that the choice of educational mode should not be driven by naive and
uncritical acceptance of the latest technology. The choice of technologies and
the choice of technical systems by universities should be driven by pedagogical,
organizational, and geographic considerations, together with a prudent
assessment of appropriate business models.
In
the wake of the emergence of “virtual reality,” the “virtual office,”
and “virtual organizations” -- to
name just of few of the catch phrases the new century has brought with it --
has come the “virtual
university.” Almost every country in the world, and every regional educational
authority, has at some time during the previous decade extolled the virtues of
virtual education. Internationally, there has been an explosion in policy
studies, experiments in inter-governmental cooperative programs, and new
initiatives in virtual education by universities, both private and public.
Some
of the experiments are driven by the desire of quality universities to enhance
their offerings and to differentiate themselves from lower tier institutions;
some are driven by upstart universities seeking cost-effective means for
expanding their student enrolments under conditions of constrained resources, in
competition with the more established universities; while others are founded on
public policy goals of expanding access to university education to social groups
previously excluded from participation. Some are even motivated simply by the
desire of universities to make money by serving new “markets” for
educational services.
The
time has come to take stock. We need to assess the variety of models extant so
that we may discern which strategies are realistic and sustainable, in a
pragmatic sense, and which strategies are educationally valuable for students.
We also need to understand under which circumstances each of the ideal models
may be feasible and, by implication, what concomitant resources and arrangements
need to be put in place to ensure success.
The
explosion of experimentation with the virtual university has taken place
concurrently with the creation and rapid development of the World Wide Web. Many
of the experiments have been founded on application of Web technologies and
associated innovations in computing and information technology. The rapid pace
of technological change has allowed little time for the development of solid
theoretical frameworks to guide planning and decision making.
Many
educational institutions have been swept up in a fashion of “technologizing”
education with only minimal understanding of the pedagogical, managerial and
financial implications of their actions. In short, the plethora of virtual
education experiments we have witnessed during the last decade has been driven
as much by opportunism, enthusiasm for new technology, and a desire to
“let’s try it and see what happens,” as by careful consideration of
pedagogical processes, educational goals, and organizational realities.
Following
the maelstrom of virtual education experiments through which we have just
journeyed it is now prudent to step back and reflect theoretically about the
nature of the phenomenon. With this goal in mind, this chapter will attempt to
systematically map the variety of forms of university-level virtual education,
identify various best-practice examples, and outline some of the strategic
issues associated with selected approaches.
The
predominant image of “virtual education” found in the literature, and among
practitioners, is that it is education delivered through the Internet or
delivered via some other platform of information and telecommunication
technologies. In this study I define “virtual university education” as
university education in which the relationships between the students and the
primary faculty and facilities of the university are either extended spatially
or mediated by technological or organizational vehicles. In other words, it
is university education that takes place indirectly rather than through
direct contact with the university’s primary faculty and facilities at its
primary location.
Rather
than focus on just one type of virtualization -- technology
mediated education -- I differentiate between three different categories of
virtualization of university education: technological virtualization,
geographical virtualization, and organizational virtualization. Each category
has its own unique logic, its own distinctive advantages, and its characteristic
problems. These categories may be characterized as follows.
Technological Virtualization of Education
Technological
virtualization of education exists when the learning processes of students are
mediated by technology. Technological virtualization is the creation of
“virtual classrooms” through the use of technological frameworks such as
Internet learning platforms, multi-media telecommunications systems, or other
configurations of information and communications technology. Technological
virtualization may take place either on the main facility of the university or
as a component of distance education.
Geographical Virtualization of Education
Geographical
virtualization is the distribution of educational activities (or the
“classroom”) over multiple geographical locations. In other words, physical
space may mediate the relationship between the students and the primary faculty
and facilities of the university.
Organizational Virtualization of Education
Organizational
virtualization is the use of inter-organizational arrangements for the delivery
of educational programs. In other words, a university may choose to cooperate
with, or enter into contractual arrangements with, other organizations for part,
or all, of the educational process. A third party may mediate the relationship
between students and the primary faculty of a university, in whole or part.
In
principle, as illustrated by various examples outlined below, each type of
virtualization can develop in its own right, independently of the others. As a
general tendency, however, most universities tend to combine more than one type
of virtualization at the same time. From the perspective of strategy the really
interesting challenge is to understand the general pattern of the relationships
between the three different types of virtualization. In other words, while the
three different types of virtualization are discrete categories, independent of
each other, it may be that under certain circumstances the implementation of one
type of virtualization may be necessary for the optimal implementation of
another type.
For
example, while it is certainly possible for a university to provide courses of
study at multiple geographical locations, without the use of modern
communications technology and without employing the services of other
organizations as sub-contractors, there may in fact be good reasons to consider
doing both of those things. While it is indeed possible for conventional
“chalk and talk” classroom instruction, or classroom-based discussion
modalities, to be employed in satellite locations, a university may nevertheless
find that the quality of its students’ education may be enhanced by combining
remote instruction with technology-mediated learning or by utilizing the
services of outside experts in that remote location.
The
special challenge here, for educators, is to determine when is it
appropriate to combine different types of virtualization, and how the
optimum mix can be determined for each particular situation. In this chapter I
seek to provide a first attempt to answer these questions. I do this by
reporting our observations of some representative examples, using the
categorization scheme I have developed. In particular, I seek to provide
provisional answers to these questions by examining what kinds of organizational
arrangements seem to be indicated when various combinations of geographical and
technological virtualization are combined. In a sense, I view organizational
arrangements as necessary aspects of strategy for successful geographical
and technological virtualization.
The
use of technology to mediate the relationship between students and the primary
faculty and facilities of an educational institution is not new. The “School
of the Air” in outback
The
use by universities of educational films or television broadcasts to complement
conventional classroom lectures is a further example of time honored
technological extensions to traditional classroom lectures. It is the
complexity, variety and ubiquity of technological media for education that makes
the contemporary situation distinctive. The variety of forms of technological
virtualization that constitute much of the new educational environment will now
be reviewed.
Technology
does not need to completely replace established teaching methods in order to
have an impact. Conventional methods for delivering education --
including classroom lectures, laboratory training, tutorials,
group discussions and library research -- can be
augmented by the use of the Web as a vehicle for delivering complementary
materials and exercises. Examples would include course bulletin boards,
list-servers, on-line access to digital course materials (including multi-media
documents), Web-based communication between students and teachers, and Web-based
communication between students themselves.
The WebCT
system developed at the
Long
before the emergence of the Internet, conventional distance education was
augmented by the use of technology-mediated communication. In conventional
distance education, materials (e.g., textbooks, course readers, videos, software
packages) are sent to students by the regular mail, and students’ work is also
submitted by mail. However, instructor-student communications that generally
take place by correspondence, may be augmented by technological means such as
telephone and fax. More recently, electronic mail has been added to the
repertoire.
Conventional
distance education may be enhanced by the use of educational television
broadcasts, either on standard television channels at non-prime times, or
through special educational television channels. This approach has the advantage
that it may reach a large audience in a standardized manner without investment
in specialized infrastructure.
An
outstanding example of a university that has made superb use of this tool is the
Open University in the
Television
has the disadvantage that it is not very flexible and it is generally only cost
effective for large audiences of students studying similar or identical
curricula. An example of an innovative attempt to overcome that obstacle is the
Utah Education Network, a publicly funded consortium enabling
An
alternative to television broadcasts is the employment of uni-directional
transmission of audio-visual material to specific groups of students in specific
locations. Lectures (either live or pre-recorded) may be delivered from the core
campus to remote classrooms (by either direct satellite links, or other
broadband communications vehicles such as ISDN). This approach is superior to
television when there is only a modest number of students in the educational
program. It works best when students are clustered in one or two remote
locations and may easily be assembled in a limited number of common locations to
receive transmissions.
A
good example of this approach is the EngiNet system of the engineering
schools in the multi-campus system of the State University of New York. A
variant on this approach is the distribution of videotapes of lectures to
students in remote locations or to students who, for one reason or another, may
not be able to attend normal campus-based classroom lectures. A disadvantage of
this approach is that it does not allow for the human interaction that may be
possible in a classroom setting. An advantage is that it may be more cost
effective than replicating live classroom instruction at multiple locations.
A
solution to the problems of the previous approach, such as the EngiNet
system, is to employ interactive Audio-Visual communications, or
video-conferencing. In this solution, lectures, seminars and classroom
discussions may be conducted synchronously at two or more remote locations,
through the use of audio-visual telecommunications (normally by either direct
satellite links, or other broadband communications channels such as ISDN).
Two-way interaction may take place between instructor and students, or between
students themselves.
A
good example of this approach is the adoption of video-conferencing by the
A
number of universities with a tradition of offering paper-based distance
education are now augmenting their conventional services with Web-based
services. Certain teaching resources (e.g., supplementary lecture materials, or
bibliographic references) are mounted on the Web, and limited use is made
bulletin boards and other forms of Internet communication for notices and
student discussions.
The
United States Open University, a sister institution to
Some
universities have stepped beyond using the Internet as a tool to enhance
conventional distance education by delivering whole courses or degree programs
completely online. In this approach all educational materials (e.g., textbooks,
course readers, videos, or software packages) are made available to students in
digital format, accessible over the Internet. Online degree programs are similar
to conventional distance education in most other respects (e.g., lectures are
not included as basic elements of the course). Correspondence between students
and the instructor takes place mostly by email, or occasionally by telephone,
and students’ work is submitted by email or through specialized Web-based
platforms.
Capella
University, founded in the United States in 1993 and accredited by the North
Central Association of Colleges and Schools, is an example of a new type of
higher education institution dedicated to helping working adults with busy lives
to integrate distance education into their complicated schedules through
“e-learning.” Capella University offers over 400 accredited courses and
degree programs over the Internet, in formats that are accessible to students at
any time and from any location.
Other
examples of the many universities that now provide distance-education courses
and degree programs over the Web are: California State University at Chico
(which provides a wide range of bachelors degrees, minors and some masters
degrees); Empire State College (part of the SUNY system in New York State, which
provides customized degrees for non-traditional students); the State University
of New York at Stony Brook (which offers a complete masters degree in
educational computing, over the Web); the University of Maryland, University
College (which offers its 63,000 students more than 70 different degree and
certificate programs online); or the Concord Law School (a recently created
private virtual law school with over 800 students).
Many
universities -- ranging from the University of Paisley in Scotland, to Charles
Sturt University in New South Wales, Australia, the University of British
Columbia in Canada, or Duke University, in North Carolina -- seek to incorporate
elements of the interactivity and communication of classroom or campus education
into online education, using web-learning platforms such as Blackboard or
proprietary on-line learning services such as that provided by Hong Kong based
company, OnLine Education Limited. With a variety of new Internet learning
platforms, distance education can be delivered over the Web in a way that
includes genuine discussion-style, or collaborative, learning. Students may
engage in structured, archived discussions with each other or the instructor at
any time of the day or night; participation may take place from anywhere in the
world; and the timing of an individual’s participation may be customized to
match his or her convenience or work schedule.
One
of the best international examples of this kind of technological virtualization
is the
NSOU
students can participate in courses for degree credit, general credit courses
(courses for transfer to other institutions), and non-credit courses. All NSOU
interactions take place online, and all students are provided with a one-week
online orientation to the environment prior to their first course. The NSOU
currently offer courses in the social sciences, culture and society, humanities,
science, lifelong learning, foreign languages, English language studies, theatre
arts, music, fine arts, communication, business, computer applications, and
culinary arts. Programs are also available through the NSOU from the Milano
Graduate School of Management and Urban Policy, the Parsons School of Design,
and the
Another
pertinent example lies with the
In
1989 the university created the “University
of
The
The
Online program is designed to benefit full-time working people in a number of
ways. Classes are offered one at a time, in sequence. There are no semesters or
terms, so students can begin a course of study during any month of the year. A
student may concentrate on one subject at a time, and when a class is completed
he or she may move on to the next class until all the degree requirements are
met.
Each
online class lasts five or six weeks. A student can sign on at any time of the
day or night. Students tend to devote an average of fifteen to twenty hours a
week to their studies.
Typically,
on the first day of the week during an online class, the instructor sends
introductory information on the week's topic and confirms the assignments, such
as textbook readings, completing a case study, or preparing a paper on the topic
at hand. The instructor typically also posts a short lecture or elaborates on
the material, and provides discussion questions related to the topic. Throughout
the week students work individually on readings and assignments. In addition,
students use the University’s computer conferencing system to participate in
the class discussion, to ask questions, and to receive feedback. Assignments are
submitted online and instructors also return graded assignments, with comments,
back to the students online.
Educational
programs offered by the
In
summary, a variety of Web-based software and hardware platforms are now
available that allow universities to mimic or, in some cases, even improve on,
the peer-to-peer and student-to-teacher interactions that have historically made
orthodox classroom-based education pedagogically and emotionally more attractive
than distance education. The asynchronous mode of Web-based educational
communication allows considerable flexibility in the timing of students’
participation. It also requires less investment in sophisticated
telecommunications and computing infrastructure than is required for synchronous
modes.
Despite
the advantages of Web-based education, especially when asynchronous interaction
is included as part of the package, some schools are resisting the temptation to
jump on the online bandwagon. Chief among the reasons is their concern that the
rich and subtle interactions, that are the hallmark of the best classroom
pedagogy, may be compromised.
One
of the virtues of the well-managed classroom experience is the possibility of
live multi-dimensional interaction, involving multiple people, in real time. The
asynchronous mode of interaction, adopted by most universities in their online
programs, has the advantage of allowing flexibility for participants. The value
of the asynchronous mode vis-à-vis convenience is, however,
counterbalanced by its neglect of instantaneous human interaction. For this
reason some Web educational platforms also allow for synchronous learning modes.
In other words, they include software that allows genuine discussion-style, or
collaborative, learning over the Web in real time. Synchronous learning, whether
conducted in the conventional classroom or over the World Wide Web, lacks --
by definition -- the
flexibility of the asynchronous mode, because students and instructors are
required to be present in the “classroom” (either physically or virtually)
at pre-set times.
At
present there are over 100 technology platforms, including software, hardware
and infrastructure, available to universities for use in online learning. In a
sample of 50 of these technology platforms [iii]
reviewed for this study, 72% of the platforms include synchronous chat
capability. They are: WebCT, BlackBoard, Learning Space, IntraLearn,
Authorware, First Class, Docent, Generation 21, LearnLinc, The Learning Manager,
EduSystem, VCampus, Phoenix Pathlore, Serf, LUVIT, WebBoard, Mentorware,
PlaceWare, SiteScape Forum, Eloquent, IVLE, Saba Learning Enterprise, InterWise
Millennium, Theorix, Embanet, Jones e-education, Trainersoft, Prometheus,
eCollege, Anlon, U4all.com, Click2learn ToolBook, MaxIT LearnerWeb, Learning
Vista Express, Centra Symposium, and Educator. It appears reasonable
to conclude that the majority of producers of online learning technology believe
providing synchronous learning capability to be an important component of their
business.
Synchronous
chat capability makes it possible for all participants logged in at a particular
time to simultaneously view the text messages of participants. Synchronous chat
capability is essentially real-time, live on the screen, instantaneous group
email. Instantaneous text communication, however, does not allow the subtlety,
complexity and dynamism of communication -- particularly tacit communication --
that forms such an important part
of live classroom discussions. The producers of some platforms have sought to
remedy this deficiency by incorporating additional synchronous features, such as
Web-based teleconferencing and videoconferencing. The following platforms (30%
of the sample) incorporate both of these two features: Learning Space,
Docent, Generation 21, LearnLinc, The Learning Manager,
Real
time text communications can only replicate a certain amount of the classroom
learning experience. The visual components of classroom communication -- for
example whiteboard/blackboard diagrams, PowerPoint presentations, live
projection of computer graphics or computerized data analysis on to a screen,
and other kinds of audio-visual aids -- are critically important to a rich
learning experience. In some of the currently available technology platforms
(34% of the sample) this problem has been addressed by the addition of a virtual
white-board function and an application-sharing function to the basic
synchronous chat capability. Platforms that incorporate all three of these
capabilities include: WebCT, BlackBoard, Learning Space, IntraLearn,
LearnLinc, EduSystem,
However,
only 6% of the sample incorporate a broad and versatile suite of synchronous
communication functions for the virtual classroom, including synchronous chat
capability, a virtual white board, application sharing, virtual space, and
teleconferencing. These platforms are: LearnLinc,
To
conclude this brief review of synchronous online learning opportunities we may
conclude that there is a wide variety of platforms already available, and many
more emerging, that make it possible for online education to mimic aspects of
the real-time interactivity of the classroom learning experience. The choice
ranges from those platforms that provide simple text-based chat capability to
those providing complex multi-media communications capability. Despite the
technological feasibility of rich synchronous online university education, it
appears that very few universities actually make use of this capability in
anything other than an ad hoc and experimental manner. It is virtually
impossible to find a university that advertises the use of synchronous Web
communications as part of its online course offerings.
There
appears to be several reasons for this situation. First, the true multi-media
synchronous learning platforms tend not to work properly unless they are
accompanied by excellent technical support services (reliably available on
demand), wide-bandwidth communications channels, sophisticated computing skills
amongst both students and teachers, and robust computing and communications
infrastructure. Second, the best systems tend to be quite expensive and are
generally beyond the range of any but the most wealthy of universities (or for
specialized applications such as high-priced executive education programs).
Third, it appears that the flexibility of the asynchronous mode (i.e., the
freedom to log in at an time whatsoever) is sufficiently attractive to students,
teachers and administrators to counterbalance the educational disadvantages of
missing out on rich real-time virtual classroom interactions.
Technological
means are already available by which virtual classrooms may mimic many of the
functions of the traditional live classroom. It appears, however, that
pragmatic, managerial and financial considerations, together with circumstantial
preferences of the new online student audiences, are currently limiting the use
of synchronous online educational tools. This situation may well change in the
near future as technology matures, synchronous platforms become more affordable,
and the necessary complementary technological capabilities of students, teachers
and administrators, are more ubiquitous.
The
evolution and convergence of complex digital communications and computing
technologies, combined with advanced digital imaging and audio systems, has
reached the point where competition between the virtual classroom space and the
conventional physical classroom space can no longer be ignored. Despite the very
real limitations of both asynchronous and synchronous online educational
platforms outlined above, some notable experiments in truly sophisticated
technology-mediated distance education have already taken place. These presage
the future of competition between universities in the digital age. One of the
most interesting examples is an experiment in geographically dispersed education
for business executives recently conducted by the
The
Wharton’s
instructors in
In
addition to the synchronous multi-media communication that took place throughout
the distributed electronic classrooms, the Wharton system also involved the use
of asynchronous web-based learning during the periods between live
physical-cum-virtual classroom lectures.
In
short, the Wharton system was an exciting example of distributed education
(distance education) that combined real classroom contact between students with
both asynchronous virtual learning and synchronous virtual learning. It was a
sophisticated system that managed to allow an extraordinary level of real-time
interaction between students and between students and the instructor.
The
system was deployed to only a limited extent, on an experimental basis only,
mainly for price-elastic corporate-sponsored audiences. At present Wharton is no
longer deploying the system. The constraints of the system are that to fulfill
its extraordinary potential it requires an extraordinary level of
infrastructure, support staff, coordination, marketing and managerial ability.
It is also expensive to establish and operate. In short, it requires resources
and a skill set not normally found among faculty in a typical academic setting.
The
In
conclusion, the Wharton experiments in mixed-mode, multi-media virtual learning,
along with the other examples of technological virtualization described above,
reveal three key lessons. First, it is already technologically feasible to mount
virtual learning programs that rival conventional classroom programs, more or
less, in educational quality and interactivity. Second, the challenge for
educators is no longer to discover whether or not such programs are feasible;
but, rather, to develop prowess at matching the mode and mix of technologies to
the particular goals and circumstances of the institution and its students.
Third, embarking on the technological virtualization of an educational program
requires the prudent assembly of complementary assets and services, such as
adequate funding, organizational capability, technical support, and managerial
acumen.
While
the desire by university leaders to provide distance education to students is
often the primary reason used to justify experiments with technological
virtualization, the technological virtualization of education and the
geographical virtualization of education are conceptually distinct modalities.
As we have seen, technological virtualization can, and does, happen in programs
where the students and the university are co-located. All students at
Geographical
virtualization, which occurs when physical space mediates the relationship
between the students and the primary faculty and facilities of the university,
may happen with or without technological virtualization.
The
simplest form of geographical organization of educational services is the
conventional approach to university education in which instructors, students and
most basic educational resources are co-located on one campus, or in one central
location. In fact, this form of organization is so ubiquitous and so well
established that the word “university” is often used synonymously to
describe both the institution and the place. Recent developments in higher
education, worldwide, are prompting more care with nomenclature. The word
“university” should denote the institution, not to the physical space where
the institution has historically been headquartered.
A
variant of the conventional single-location university is the university with a
single main campus and one or more satellite facilities, organized under one
public jurisdiction. In this approach academic systems are largely centralized
on the main campus, and student enrolments are generally centrally organized,
but a variety of activities or programs are distributed at specialized
facilities (not full campuses) at remote locations.
A
typical example would be Technische Universitaet Muenchen, operating under the
auspices of the State of
Another
model is the centralized university with multiple campuses, each located in a
different place and each covering a broad array of academic fields and programs.
In some cases each campus may develop a special set of competencies unique to
that campus, but in all cases the scope of academic expertise on each campus is
wide. Each campus co-locates students, instructors and basic educational
resources. Each campus has a degree of autonomy (in some cases great autonomy)
but certain managerial functions remain at a central campus, or central
location. This model is basically that of the single integrated campus,
replicated in more than one place, but governed through a centralized system.
Typically, the multiple campuses are located within one common geographical
territory, such as a state or province, under a single public jurisdiction such
as a provincial government.
A
shining example of this model is the
Similar
examples in the
An
extreme example of the multi-campus university system under a single public
jurisdiction is the State University of New York. The University, known by its
acronym “SUNY,” consists of over 60 separate campuses controlled from the
central SUNY administration in
Multiple
campus universities have also emerged in other countries, such as
A
third form of geographical virtualization is the university with a single, or
primary, campus, but with students distributed over a wide geographical
territory. In this case students are not clustered in particular locations, but
are dispersed spatially in a random or semi-random manner. Under these
circumstances, students tend by necessity to be connected to the main campus
through distance-education systems and technologies.
The
Open University in the
In
this form of spatially distributed education it is almost impossible to create
the kind of complex multi-dimensional learning experiences associated with
conventional campus based learning.
In
another model there is one central campus, or primary campus, and remote
students are clustered in certain distinct satellite locations. The geographical
clustering of remote students means that some conventional classroom-based
pedagogical methods may be employed in the educational process in addition-to,
or instead-of, various distance-education technologies and systems. There are at
least four variants of this model that universities may follow in delivering
educational services to remote clusters of students: (a) one or more satellite
locations with no dedicated facilities; (b) one or more satellite locations with
modest facilities, dedicated to one program only; (c) one or more mini-campuses
at satellite locations, with a variety of programs; and (d) one or more
substantial campuses in satellite locations. I will review each one of these
variants.
Central Campus with Satellite Locations but No Dedicated Facilities
In
this model a university offers one or more educational programs in specific
remote locations, but no serious capital outlay is made, and no investment is
made in dedicated facilities under the control of the university. This is not
distance education, in the sense in which the term is normally understood; it is
conventional classroom instruction in remote locations. Classroom space and
office space may be leased from another educational institution, or may even be
rented from corporations, hotels, or other kinds of organizations. In addition,
the university may purchase educational support services and logistical support
services from local suppliers.
A
typical example of this model is the Helsinki School of Economics and Business
Administration (which offers a series of specialized MBA degree programs in
Central Campus with Modest Facilities at Satellite Locations, One Program
Only at Each Facility
In
this model a university offers one program only (e.g., an MBA program), or a set
of programs in one field (e.g., business or technology management), in a
specific remote location. Modest investment is made in a dedicated facility of
the university in that location. It may consist of classrooms, office space, and
dedicated support staff under the employ of the university. This approach
requires more commitment and more investment by the university than required
under the previous model; nevertheless, it is narrow in scope, thereby limiting
risk and allowing the university to experiment in a relatively low key manner.
An
excellent example of this approach is the recent establishment of facilities in
Examples
in a field other than business administration might include the
Central Campus with a Mini-campus and Multiple Programs at One or More
Satellite Locations
In
this model the university seeks to provide something of a more balanced and
rounded educational opportunity for its students in remote locations. It does so
by offering multiple academic programs, probably in complementary or related
fields, in a specific remote location. Mid-level investment is made in a
dedicated facility of the university in that location, capable of accommodating
a wide variety of educational activities and pedagogical methods. The investment
may consist of classrooms, office space, and other facilities designed to house
an array of activities other than simple instruction. Dedicated support staff
will be employed by the university, and a modest level of services and
facilities required across academic fields will be provided in the satellite
location.
This
model differs from one other model discussed above (a “university with a main
campus and some satellite facilities, under single public jurisdiction”) in
one respect. It involves operating across the boundaries of at least two public
jurisdictions. This fact brings with it a number of legal, diplomatic,
administrative and managerial challenges. However, it also brings with it some
potentially valuable opportunities for cross-cultural educational enrichment.
It
is difficult to find successful examples of this form of geographical
virtualization, probably because the risk-benefit trade-offs are so great. The
This
model is similar to another model discussed above (“multiple-campus
university, under single public jurisdiction”). However, in this case the
remote campus, or campuses, may be located in a different country, or within a
different public jurisdiction, subject to different laws, different educational
traditions, or different market conditions. Typically, the remote campus will
cater for a full range of academic activities (not just teaching) and will be
provided by the University with a substantial repertoire of support services and
infrastructure, catered to the activities of the satellite campus.
There
are few fully-fledged examples of this mode of virtualization. However, it is
entirely plausible that the current wave of international collaborations and
experiments between universities (as evidenced by the recent activities of
prominent institutions such as Columbia University, the London School of
Economics, New York University, HEC Paris, and Duke University) may lead to some
interesting multi-national universities in the not-so-distant future.
At
present the two best examples of this ambitious category of geographical
virtualization lie with
The
most advanced example is the Mexican university, Instituto Tecnologico y de
Estudios Superiores de
The
remarkable national and international expansion of the Monterrey Institute of
Technology presages what will probably be a new phenomenon in spatially
dispersed education: multi-mode education in multiple locations, combining the
best of traditional classroom instruction with the best of contemporary
technology-mediated learning.
The
final category of geographical virtualization is the university with multiple
campuses across multiple public jurisdictions but with no obvious hierarchy
between programs in the main campus and programs in the satellite campuses. The
only example I have identified in this category is the
It
is not clear whether the model created by the
Inter-organizational
arrangements are an important part of virtual education. In most real-life cases
of technological virtualization and geographical virtualization there is more
than one organization involved. Universities almost always enlist the help of
other universities, or of specialized service providers, to implement their
virtualization plans. Such arrangements range from purchasing Web-based
educational software and infrastructure services from independent technology
companies, to cooperating with a foreign university for access to suitable
classroom facilities for offshore programs, or even to contracting out the
delivery of entire degree programs to other educational organizations, through
franchising agreements of various kinds. In short, organizational virtualization
may also be seen as a central part of a university’s strategy for implementing
technological virtualization and geographical virtualization.
As
stated earlier, organizational virtualization of university education may
defined as the mode of delivering education that exists when a third party
mediates the relationship between students and the primary faculty of a
university.
Before
discussing some strategic organizational issues faced by universities when
implementing technological and geographical virtualization I will briefly
summarize the basic categories of organizational virtualization.
The
simplest, most familiar, and most orthodox organizational arrangement for the
delivery of university education is the vertical integration model where the
university owns and directly controls all assets and resources required for the
delivery of its programs. The university operates its activities in each
location entirely in its own right, without a venture partner. This principle
may be applied at any location, whether it is at the core campus or at the site
of a satellite venture. In the pure form of this model the university also
directly controls and owns all of its own non-academic operations such as
janitorial services, food services, accounting, information systems, utilities
management, and building maintenance.
In
the era when their faculty, facilities, students and administrators tended to be
collocated in one central location, and when their educational environment was
relatively stable, this organizational model -- the totally integrated sole
venture -- was probably the natural choice for universities to follow. As the
era of virtual education has emerged, however, universities face many pressures
to embrace alternative organizational patterns for the delivery of educational
services. I will now briefly review some of these alternatives.
In
the alternative that lies closest to the orthodox model the university operates
its activities in each location entirely in its own right, without a venture
partner, whether at the core campus or at the site of a satellite venture.
However, it chooses to purchase certain non-academic services (e.g., supply of
offices or laboratory space, secretarial services, marketing services, legal
services, accounting, janitorial work, provision of student accommodation, and
perhaps even record-keeping) from outside organizations. In some cases a
sole-source provider may be used; in other cases, a different supplier may be
chosen for each service.
This
model, while a departure from tradition, has nevertheless been adopted widely,
especially in the
In a
second version of the sole venture alternative (i.e., where the university
operates its activities in each location entirely in its own right, without a
venture partner) the university contracts-out certain activities that come close
to the core educational mission of the institution. As with the previous model,
it probably chooses to purchase certain non-academic services from outside
organizations. However, in this case it also contracts-out some academic
activities, such as certain teaching assignments, evaluating (or pre-evaluating)
student applications for admission, grading student work, providing counseling
services to students, or day-to-day organization of classroom activities. In
this model, the university maintains formal control over all academic functions,
but allows other persons or organizations to conduct some of the university’s
normal academic business, under supervision.
Universities
with satellite programs in remote locations often adopt this approach. For
example, the primary university may recruit faculty from local universities in
the remote location to teach courses in an adjunct capacity, but the university
will retain full control of the curriculum. The university may also recruit
teaching assistants from the local community to grade student papers or exams,
but university faculty would normally supervise those assistants. While this
kind of contracting-out of educational activities may appear to be somewhat
radical compared with the first alternative, it is only marginally more
aggressive than the common practice of universities employing part-time and
adjunct faculty rather than regular academic faculty to teach courses, or of
employing outside agencies to administer student admissions tests such as the
GRE, the GMAT or the TOEFL tests. The general practice of contracting-out a
variety of academic activities is particularly pertinent to universities with
distance education programs, but it is actually also commonly found -- at least
at modest levels -- amongst conventional single-location universities.
A
remarkable example of where a university has developed the contracting-out of
academic services into a fine-tuned system lies with the largest private
university in the
With
the growth of international distance education during the last decade
partnerships and joint venture relationships between universities have become
quite common. This represents a further step down the pathway of the virtual
university. The most common expression of this phenomenon has been the situation
in which one university (the primary university) operates its activities in a
satellite location as a joint venture with another university (the secondary
university). The secondary university may own a campus at that location which it
makes available to the primary university for the delivery of that
university’s satellite programs. The secondary university will probably
provide administrative services and various kinds of logistical assistance to
the primary university.
Typically,
the secondary university will also provide academic faculty to teach courses for
the primary university, and the primary university may even incorporate
pre-existing courses from the secondary university into its own program.
However, in most cases the degree remains the property of the primary
university; and the primary university carefully guards the control of its
curriculum and its academic standards. In one variant of this model, the
secondary university delivers the lower-level courses of the degree (say, the
first two years of a four-year degree) on-site in the remote location on behalf
of the primary university; and the students then move to the home location of
the primary university to complete the latter two years of the degree.
Under
the variety of expressions of this model, the secondary university is a
subservient partner who is prepared to enter in to the relationship because of
reasons such as: financial advantages, access to expertise that would otherwise
not be available, the opportunity to attract more students to the institution,
or because of some perceived academic prestige associated with the primary
university.
Examples
of such arrangements include: the State University of New York at Albany (a
public university in New York State) with Fudan University (in Shanghai, China);
Syracuse University (a private university in upstate New York) with the
University of Shanghai for Science and Technology (in Shanghai, China); the
University of Illinois at Champagne-Urbana with the education and training
division of Tata (the diversified industrial and technological conglomerate of
India); California State University with the International Youth University, in
China; and, the Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration
(mentioned earlier as an example of a European institution with international
satellite locations, but no dedicated remote facilities of its own) with the
Institute of Industrial Policy Studies (a quasi-university institution based in
Seoul, Korea).
A
variant of the above partnership model involves two universities acting as equal
partners rather than one being subservient to the other. A university based in
one location operates its activities in a satellite location as a joint venture
with another university. The second university may own a campus at that location
which it makes available to the primary university, or the two universities may
decide to pool resources to establish a new facility.
Under
this model the two universities consider themselves to be academic equals, even
if the academic and practical repertoires of the two institutions are not
identical. The two universities may offer a joint degree of some kind,
officially cross-articulate their respective degrees, or agree upon some kind of
structured protocol for addressing matters of curriculum design, entrance
requirements and performance standards. Examples of this model include
cooperation between: the University of Southern California (in Los Angeles) with
Yonsei University (in Seoul, Korea) in the fields of real estate and city and
regional planning; Pepperdine University and the California Institute of
Technology (both private universities in Southern California) for graduate
studies in the management of technology; and the recently formed joint venture
between the graduate schools of business of Harvard University (in
Massachusetts) and Stanford University (in Northern California) for the delivery
of executive education programs.
One
difficulty with the previous model, the joint venture between two equal academic
partners who are competent in the same general field, is that there is an
intrinsic risk of conflict or instability over questions of which institution
ought to assert primary control over curricula and pedagogy. The model is also
intrinsically prone to instability created by the challenges of integrating the
different academic cultures of each partner. In other words, while the model has
the advantage that the similar strengths of each institution may be pooled to
create economies of scale or greater academic depth, it carries the persistent
problem of potential academic territory disputes between each university.
One
solution to the problems just described lies with the formation of a joint
venture relationship based upon complementary capabilities rather than
equivalent capabilities. In this alternative model the university operates its
activities in a satellite location as a joint venture with another organization,
but the organization must not be an academic institution. For example, the
partner organization may be an industrial company, a not-for-profit institute, a
government instrumentality, or some other kind of business enterprise.
Even
though the two organizations under this arrangement may be quite different in
style -- in terms of assets, capabilities, public image, or ways of doing
business -- they must be equal partners, in the sense of vesting equal stakes in
the venture, taking similar or equivalent risks, and expecting equivalent
returns. The key advantage of this model of cooperation is that the risk of
conflict over academic authority and academic territory is almost non-existent.
It also has the advantage that each organization contributes something to the
partnership that represents its unique and strongest asset, e.g., educational
prowess, university brand-name, financial capital, or logistical and management
expertise.
An
example of this model is the contractual agreement between the State University
of New York at Stony Brook (a comprehensive research university in Long Island,
New York) and the China Weal Business Machinery Corporation, Ltd. (a private
information technology company based in Guangzhou and Nanhai cities, in China)
for offering a master of science degree in management to employer-sponsored
students from private companies and state enterprises in Guangdong province. At
a local level, SUNY Stony Brook has also entered in to a joint venture with
Many
other universities now offer such customized, or semi-customized, in-house
educational programs for companies. Stephens Institute of Technology, in
A
particularly interesting illustration of this model of cooperation lies with a
program jointly developed by FT Knowledge (a private British company, associated
with the Financial Times group) and the
An
alternative that bears some similarities to the “joint venture between
academic equals” model, but which moves more completely in the direction of
virtualization, requires no new campus to be created and no new facility to be
constructed. In this model each member-university of a group of geographically
dispersed universities makes its resources (tangible and intangible) available
to contribute to a “virtual university” that transcends the boundaries of
each individual university, yet draws upon the assets of each member in each
place. In other words, a meta-university is created in which one or more
academic programs are delivered in multiple locations simultaneously, drawing
upon the equivalent academic capabilities (or, at least, complementary academic
capabilities) of each university in each location. In one variant of this model
there would be a “lead university” in a primary management role; in another
variant there would be some kind of flat or distributed management structure.
This
form of organizational virtualization of university education, while still
somewhat unusual, has recently begun to flourish. For example,
An
even more ambitious example of a global educational meta-program lies with the
TRIUM program, which is a joint venture of New York University (New York City),
the London School of Economics (in London, England), and HEC (in Paris, France).
In this program students shuttle between classes taught at the facilities of
each of the three universities, while continuing with their regular executive
responsibilities at whatever location or locations they are based. The TRIUM
program also involves the periodic participation of an additional partner
university, selected each year by agreement of the three primary universities.
The fourth university in the group changes annually and provides a further
location -- normally in
A
strictly European meta-program, similar in style to that of the TRIUM program,
has also been created by three universities in three separate countries: the
University of
The
The
final alternative model of organizational virtualization of university education
also requires no new campus to be created and no new facility to be constructed.
In this model each member-university of a pair (or group) of academically
different universities, contributes resources to build a new program that would
otherwise not be possible. For example, a university with a strong medical
school may collaborate with a university with a strong engineering school to
develop a new joint program in bioengineering. Alternatively, a university with
excellent technology-oriented faculty could collaborate with a university with
excellent management faculty to create a joint program in management of
technology.
A
example of an innovative approach to cooperation between two universities
located in the same city -- with each one being similar, in the sense of being a
comprehensive research university with a roughly equivalent range of subjects,
but unique in its respective academic character and institutional history --
lies with the University of Sydney and the University of New South Wales, both
located in Sydney, Australia. These two universities recently merged their
graduate schools of management to form a single management school simultaneously
affiliated with both universities. In other words, this arrangement has created
not just a new program, operated as a joint venture, but a completely new hybrid
institution. This arrangement allows for the distinctive strengths and
reputations of the two separate universities to be retained, while enabling the
creation of a nationally prominent set of programs, within a coherent framework,
drawing upon the strengths of each partner. The arrangement also represents a
creative way of avoiding the intrinsic tendencies towards instability and
conflict that are associated with the “Joint Venture with Another University,
Equal Venture Partners” model discussed above.
Another
variation of this model involves two universities of very different character,
located within the same region:
The
A
number of general principles may be discerned from the lessons of universities
who have experimented with the virtualization modes described above. The
following principles are provisional, drawing upon the practical observations
and insights of the author, gained through direct experience in managing
virtualization projects and through interviews with a variety of university
managers involved in such programs. These provisional principles may form the
basis for subsequent detailed research and analysis. This list is meant to be
indicative rather than exhaustive.
While
each of the three basic types of virtualization are discrete categories and
while, in principle, they may each be pursued in their own right independently
of the other two, in actual practice it is almost impossible to pursue one
without also pursuing at least one of the others. In other words, in practice,
the relationship between technological virtualization, geographical
virtualization and organizational virtualization is not random. The relationship
is one of loose coupling rather than tight coupling.
There
is an inverse relationship between the degree to which students are clustered in
particular geographical places and the need for universities to adopt
technological virtualization initiatives. In other words, the more that students
are distributed randomly over a wide geographical space the greater the
pressures become for universities to deliver education in a technologically
virtual mode.
There
is an inverse relationship between the degree to which students are able to
attend classes at regular specified times, and the need for universities to
adopt technological virtualization initiatives. In other words, the more
students’ lifestyles require them to adopt erratic or abnormal schedules for
studying, the greater the pressures become for universities to deliver education
in a technologically virtual mode.
There
is a positive relationship between the degree to which universities adopt either
technological virtualization or geographical virtualization and the degree to
which they will face pressures to also adopt organizational virtualization of
education. In other words, universities will generally not be able to avoid
organizational virtualization without threatening the health of their endeavors
in technological virtualization and geographical virtualization.
The
less that their students are clustered in specific geographic localities, and
the less that their students are willing and able to attend classes at specific
and regular times, the more universities will face pressures in the direction of
organizational virtualization. The fifth principle is a corollary of the first
four principles.
There
is a positive relationship between the degree to which universities offer
educational programs across the boundaries of public jurisdictions, especially
national boundaries, and the pressure they face to move in the direction of
organizational virtualization.
In
general, there is a positive relationship between the size of the gap between
the per capita wealth levels of two countries and the demand by students
in the poorer of the two countries for education from universities in the richer
of the two countries.
There
is an inverse relationship between the size of the potential demand by students
in foreign jurisdictions, especially foreign countries, for educational services
from universities in the home jurisdiction or country, and the ability of the
recipients of the services to pay. In other words, students in the best position
to pay for virtual educational services are probably not the ones most likely to
seek the service. The eighth principle is a corollary of the seventh principle.
There
is inevitable pressure for universities to adopt different financing and revenue
models for virtual education programs -- especially
those targeted at foreign locations --
than they normally follow for
programs on their primary campus at the home location. The ninth principle is a
corollary of the sixth, seventh and eighth principles.
It
is necessary to utilize local resources from the foreign location where a
geographically virtual program is delivered in order to ensure that the program
is appropriately attuned to the local environment, and to properly address the
challenges created by the financial constraints expressed in the eighth
principle.
The
inter-organizational relationships that, in general, are necessary for the
success of technological virtualization and geographical virtualization, will
not be sustainable without a great deal of attention and effort from managers
and leaders from all of the participating parties. In other words,
organizational virtualization requires a lot of work. Such work includes
proactively managing the relationships between each organization, investing
substantial resources in nurturing the organizational relationships, building
mutual understanding between key people in the participating organizations, and
building and maintaining trust between those same people.
Unless
substantial human and organizational talent, enthusiasm, intelligence and
commitment is directed by universities at organizational virtualization, their
efforts at technological virtualization and geographical virtualization will
tend to fail. The twelfth principle is a corollary of the previous eleven
principles.
The
twelve general principles of the virtual university just enunciated reveal how
important it is for universities to think through carefully their strategies for
funding their virtual programs and for structuring the financial relationships
with their partners. The sixth, seventh, eight, ninth and tenth principles, in
particular, raise this challenge. The following are brief summaries of some of
the main options available to designers of virtual education programs.
Most
universities have stable, traditional methods for raising revenue to cover the
cost of running their programs. However, such methods are often inappropriate
for virtual education programs, and university administrators are forced to
grapple with alternative revenue systems to fund the new activities. I will now
review some of the main options, ranging from the most conventional to the
somewhat less orthodox.
In
many countries the provision of free university education by governments to
their citizenry is a central tenet of public policy. In some cases this is
restricted to a privileged group of highly qualified students and in others a
much wider sector of the population is eligible. Although this system is
gradually being abandoned or weakened by a number of governments, it
nevertheless remains widespread.
For
universities relying almost exclusively on state funding for their budgets it
may be very difficult to adjust to the new rules of the virtual university
environment. There are at several reasons for this. First, the institutional
culture of state funded universities may lead to a kind of inertia regarding the
search for opportunities for alternative sources of funding É why trouble
yourself with the precarious and potentially stressful struggle for revenue from
the open market when you can rely on the benevolent hand of the state to provide
your funding in a stable and familiar manner?
Second,
the administrative systems and bureaucratic regimes of state funded universities
develop a kind of rigidity that may be difficult to realign, even if their
leaders may be genuinely interested in doing so. The entrenched systems and
rules of such universities may not be suitable for handling the complex
realities of the virtual environment, but the people whose careers may have
grown on the back of those systems may be resistant to change.
Third,
governments are normally under pressure for the funds they have raised from
taxing their citizens to be expended on programs that are perceived to be of
direct benefit to the same population from which the taxes are drawn.
Traditional university programs generally fall easily under that framework.
However, virtual education programs, by their very nature, tend to benefit
people who may fall outside the tax paying population to whom the government is
beholden. While legal and procedural remedies may be available to address this
problem, the challenges of doing so are sufficient that many governments may be
reluctant to move wholeheartedly in the direction of one hundred percent funding
of virtual education programs.
Fourth,
as indicated earlier in this chapter, most successful virtual education programs
involve participation of private companies in the provision of technical,
organizational or even academic services. Many governments are reluctant to deal
with the potentially awkward accountability problems of mixing what amounts to
private and public business activities in the one pot, financed completely by
public funds.
For
these and other reasons virtual education programs may require funding by
alternative methods than those enjoyed under the traditional one-hundred-percent
state-funding model.
In
many countries the dominant model for funding university education is to combine
state funding -- typically
based on some kind of standardized “per student” formula --
with tuition paid by each student.
The trend exhibited by state universities, world-wide, in recent decades has
been for the percentage of funding coming from tuition and fees rather than
state funding to increase. This situation provides more room to move to cover
the exigencies of virtual education; but state universities operating under this
system still face many of the same constraints found in universities that enjoy
total state funding for education. Those constraints have become almost ironic,
in some instances, where the percentage of the total budget of a state
university coming from the state itself may be quite small; yet, the state still
retains control.
A
variant on the above formula may be found with private universities, in which
the operating expenses of the university are derived from a combination of
tuition and fees, on one hand, and income from endowment funds, on the other
hand. This model is particularly strong in the United States where the size of
the endowments of some of the elite private universities are enormous, providing
great opportunities for them to pursue new initiatives without the constraint of
having to pursue negotiations with government authorities with tight-strapped
budgets.
Private
universities, by their very nature, have greater flexibility in the way they may
approach innovative projects and educational modalities because they do not face
quite the same accountability problems as the state universities. This means
that, in principle, private universities are in a better position than state
universities to pursue the full range of virtualization options described in
this chapter. Private universities face their own constraints, such as the need
to cover their costs without the guarantee of state subsidies, the need to
please their “customers” (the students and their parents or sponsors who pay
the fees), or perhaps certain restrictions on the way that endowment funds may
be used. State universities, on the other hand, may be able to find creative
ways to isolate certain virtual education programs from the normal state
budgeting system. However, as a general rule the growth of virtual education may
create pressures, internationally, for movements in the direction of private
funding, or quasi-private funding, of university education.
Some
private universities have very small, or virtually non-existent, endowments.
This fact forces then to rely almost entirely on tuition revenue to fund their
activities. That, in turn, means that such organizations must be very responsive
to the needs and demands of their students, at the risk of becoming financially
unviable if they fail to do so. This is true for both the traditional
not-for-profit private university (the vast majority of all private
universities) and the new breed of for-profit private universities, such as the
Tuition-driven
universities, as we may refer to this particular group of organizations, may be
able to augment their revenues by obtaining grants from various charitable and
government organizations to fund certain specific virtual education programs. On
the whole, however, they must fully fund their initiatives from the tuition
revenue each program brings in. In short, they must be run as businesses,
whether for-profit or not-for-profit. This may become a constraint because of
the natural tendency of such a university to avoid programs that may force it
sustain a loss; yet, it may also become a source of new flexibility and
opportunity, as the university is forced by the need to survive to pursue
initiatives that truly meet the demands of a complex and discerning population
of potential “customers” for education.
An
increasingly popular alternative to the traditional sources of university
funding (government appropriations, tuition (paid directly by students or their
parents), private endowment funds, or charitable grants) is the corporate
sponsor. Under this system, a university will enter into a contract with an
outside corporate sponsor (typically a private corporation, but possibly also
some other kind of organization, such as a labor union, an industry association,
or a not-for-profit political organization) to offer an in-house program as a
service to that sponsor.
In
an in-house program, only students who are employees or members of the corporate
sponsor’s organization will be permitted to enroll in the program. Often the
program will be delivered inside the facilities of the sponsor rather than at
the location of the university’s normal facilities. In some cases the
curriculum and pedagogy will be identical to that of the normal program of the
university, but often a special customized program will be delivered, tailored
to the particular demands of the client (the sponsoring corporation). Many large
corporations have created their own internal “corporate university” to
provide customized education and training to employees. Some of these corporate
universities choose to contract-out the delivery of some of their programs to
more recognizable “authentic” universities. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon
under the in-house corporate sponsorship model for the university to modify its
regular curriculum or pedagogy (either surreptitiously or openly) to accommodate
the needs of the corporate sponsor.
Under
the simple (in-house) corporate sponsorship model just described, a total price
for the delivery of the whole program is negotiated in advance; sometimes
variable pricing formulae are used and sometimes the contract will involve a
fixed total price. In contrast to the conventional educational setting, where
the tone may be one of the university providing education to students, with the
funding somehow being left in the shadows as a subject not very fitting for
discussion in a scholarly environment, in the corporate-sponsorship setting the
tone may be one of paying an agreed price for the delivery of a specified
(albeit, educational) product.
A
variation on the in-house corporate sponsorship model is where multiple
corporations concurrently enter in to agreements with the university to provide
a specified program of education for selected members or employees of their
organizations. These kinds of programs are generally referred to as “executive
education” programs. While there are a wide variety of contractual and
organizational formulae used by universities under the “executive education”
rubric, the typical arrangement involves a group of “executives” from a
group of corporations going through a program of study as a single cohort. A
standard protocol typically exists by which the agreement between the university
and the employer/sponsor of each individual student is structured.
The
multiple-corporate-sponsorship model generally provides for a more diverse and
complex mix of students than is possible under the single-corporate-sponsorship
(in-house) model. The range of students is, however, still restricted to
employees or members of the sponsoring organizations.
An
advantage of both kinds of corporate sponsorship models (single and multiple
corporate sponsors) is that, within the constraints of the corporate agreement,
the university has a great deal of freedom to structure virtual education
programs as it best sees fit... without needing to be unduly concerned about the
constraints and accountability problems of state-funded programs discussed
above.
There
is another model of corporate sponsorship of university education that seeks to
combine the simplicity and business-structure of the
single-corporate-sponsorship (in-house) model with the open-ness and complexity
of the traditional individual-student-tuition model. In this model an
independent organization (perhaps a private corporation, or a not-for-profit
institute) will enter in to a contract with a university to pay the university a
fee, according to a predetermined schedule, in return for delivering a specified
program of education to a body of suitably qualified students delivered to the
university by the sponsoring organization. The sponsoring organization will then
enter in to whatever arrangements it deems appropriate to recruit students and
to collect payments (from whatever source) sufficient to cover both the cost of
the fee to the university and its own expenses.
Finally,
some universities may choose to offer a standardized program, or suite of
programs, to students who have been funded from a variety of the above sources.
In other words, regular state-funded students may sit together in the classroom
with corporate sponsored students, both learning the same material, even though
the contractual conditions under which they entered the program may be entirely
different.
This
model has the advantage that it may help create economies of scale for
universities in the delivery of programs, and it may also help to promote a
degree of variety amongst students that might not normally be possible with
typical corporate-sponsored programs. However, the model also has some
disadvantages. Awkward dynamics may arise between students over differences in
the financial terms of their enrolment, and over differences in expectations
about the nature of the learning environment, study discipline, performance
standards, or pedagogy. In addition, many universities may be hampered by legal
and accountability restrictions imposed on them by their respective governments.
There
are no doubt other models extant. The important conclusion to be drawn here is
that university administrators contemplating the adoption of virtual university
programs will probably be forced to grapple with designing a funding formula
that artfully chooses from among the above alternatives. That might not be easy
for conservative universities that have become used to a particular time-proven
and simple method of funding their activities.
Most
of the innovative kinds of funding mechanisms for virtual education involve
cooperative agreements between the university and at least one other
organization. In addition to identifying new kinds of funding sources for
virtual education, university administrators need to think carefully about the
detailed arrangements they need to put in place for handling financial
transactions between themselves and their partner organizations. Poorly designed
financial structures may damage cooperation and trust between venture partners
and, ultimately, may undermine the viability of the actual programs.
Perhaps
the most important consideration when designing the financial system for a
virtual education program is the need to ensure that program revenue is
channeled in such a way that its managers are able to deploy sufficient funds,
in a timely manner, to effectively operate the program. Virtual education
programs create many challenges that need to be addressed in an agile and
efficient manner, sometimes immediately. Urgent expenses may be created in the
area of extraordinary adjunct faculty expenses, accommodation and travel
requirements, telecommunications expenses, corporate negotiation exigencies, or
other logistical matters. Typically, such expenses may not be met -- at least
with sufficient speed -- under the frameworks of conventional university
budgeting systems.
The
normal arrangement under conventional university budgeting systems is that
planning exercises take place annually (or perhaps even every second or third
year) by which academic departments may negotiate for resource allocations
(especially faculty lines) from the university’s central administration to
cover projected activities during the coming years. If the negotiations are
successful, and once the resources are allocated, the department will need to
work within the constraints of those resources until the next round of budgeting
and negotiations takes place. In most cases revenue from delivering degree
programs (e.g., tuition or government allocations) goes in to a general revenue
fund, controlled tightly by either by the state or by the central university
administration. It is not uncommon under the conventional system for a
disjuncture to exist between the need for resources by academic departments and
their access to resources from the central university administration or the
State.
Under
the conventional (non-virtual) approach to organizing university education, this
system was probably quite satisfactory, despite its problems. However, the
speed, complexity and flexibility required in typical virtual education programs
makes the conventional system very inconvenient, and probably even non-viable.
Virtual education programs in many of the categories described above will only
be managed properly if funds are placed in a special account to which access may
be granted in a timely and convenient manner, with minimal bureaucratic
obstacles.
In
addition to addressing the main issue just described, managers of virtual
education programs will need to judiciously structure the mechanisms for
transferring funds between all key parties. They may draw upon some of the
options that I will now describe.
In
the simplest system for handling finances in an organizationally virtual
education program all revenue, from whatever original source, comes directly to
the primary university. The primary university then allocates funds according to
its discretion, either internally, or for the purchase of services and supplies
from external organizations and individuals, entirely at its discretion. This
arrangement, while apparently quite simply and probably also attractive to the
primary university itself, has the disadvantage that it may not be attractive to
the university’s venture partners. That problem may, in turn, threaten the
feasibility of the program itself.
Under
the terms of a second system for handling finances all revenue, from whatever
original source, also comes directly to the primary university. However, in this
case the primary university will purchase a significant array of services from
the main venture partner according to terms laid out in a cooperation agreement.
This arrangement has an advantage over the “simple system” just described,
in that it guarantees greater benefits for the venture partner, thereby creating
some incentives to keep the collaboration healthy.
A
third possible system is a kind of franchise arrangement. It is quite different
to the first two systems in that all program revenues, from whatever source, go
directly to the venture partner rather than to the primary university. The
venture partner will then send the primary university a fee according to a
schedule defined in the cooperation agreement. This fee is a form of licensing
fee transferred to the primary university as a payment for the right to deliver
all or part of the primary university’s program. It has the advantage of being
rather simple; but with that simplicity comes an obligation for the primary
university to provide all the support systems and services normally expected of
franchisors. The primary university carries the primary responsibility to ensure
that its normal systems are properly administered by the venture partner, or
venture partners.
A
fourth possible model system is more radical than the simple franchise system
and may be viewed as the inverse of the second system described above. Under
this model, as was the case with the simple franchise system, all program
revenues, from whatever source, go directly to the venture partner rather than
to the primary university. However, in this case the primary responsibility for
managing the program lies with the venture partner rather than with the primary
university. The venture partner will purchase a significant array of services
from the primary university according to terms laid out in a cooperation
agreement. These services may include such things as providing the basic
curriculum structure, allowing use of the university’s name, issuing degrees,
providing an official repository for student records, and sending a certain
number of teachers from the primary university’s regular faculty to teach
courses in the program.
This
kind of system will probably be very attractive to the venture partner because
of the freedom it allows for that organization to utilize its capabilities to
the fullest and to exercise opportunities to make money through association with
the primary university. It may also be attractive to the primary university
because it is a relatively “no hassle” way of extending its reach and of
earning some extra revenue through the work of the venture partner. However,
depending upon its culture and policies, the primary university might also feel
somewhat uncomfortable with this arrangement because of the lack of direct
control it may exert over its “own” program. The question might also be
raised as to what extent the program really belongs to the primary university,
since the majority of the work in managing the program may have been exerted by
the venture partner.
A
fifth possible system, that has the potential to overcome most of the
disadvantages of the previous four systems, is a genuine joint venture where
each party has equal stakes in the venture. Under this arrangement a special
joint venture account is established in to which all program revenues, from
whatever source, are deposited. Payments are allocated from that account to
whatever purposes are deemed appropriate under the joint venture agreement, no
matter where or by whom the expenses are incurred. At the end of the program, or
at the end of a defined period of time, surpluses remaining in the account may
be appropriated by each venture partner (one of which is the primary university)
according to pre-agreed terms.
While
this system has real advantages over the previous four, those advantages come
with a cost. The genuine joint venture requires great commitment by managers of
both parties to nurture mutual understanding and mutual cooperation by all
parties involved. It also requires great care and integrity by both parties for
the joint solution of problems that inevitably arise in the administration of
the program.
A
variation that may be added to either the fourth model system (“venture
partner channels funds to primary university”) or the fifth model system
(“genuine equal joint venture”) is as follows. In either of these systems an
agreement may be reached whereby the teaching of courses in the program may be
shared between teachers based in the primary university’s regular faculty, and
teachers recruited or provided by the venture partner for the program. The share
of teachers coming from each source may be equal, or it may be based on some
other mutually agreed distribution; it may even be variable, depending upon the
exigencies of the program. Under this system the amount of money transferred to
the primary university will be proportional, in some way, to the percentage of
teaching conducted directly by regular faculty of that same university.
This
variation allows for the cooperation to be perceived as fair by both parties in
the sense that the transfer of funds to the primary university bears some
perceivable relationship to the actual amount of direct educational contribution
it makes. However, the system also carries with it an intrinsic risk: either
party may attempt to manipulate or influence the distribution of direct teaching
responsibilities for the purpose of influencing the balance of funds moving
between them, rather than because of genuine educational or logistical
considerations associated with the program itself.
Probably,
none of the above model systems for structuring financial transactions should be
touted as the ideal system for all educational programs involving more than one
party. However, even this brief review reveals how important it is for managers
of universities engaging in virtual education initiatives to evaluate
alternative financial systems in the light of their circumstances and goals. A
poorly designed system for handling finances between partners in a virtual
university program may undermine the viability of the program itself.
Before
concluding with some key themes associated with managing the virtual university
I will briefly list a number of potential strategic issues faced by universities
as they embark on the virtualization of their programs. There is not space here
to articulate rigorous responses to these issues. Rather, they are raised here
to signal the type of managerial acumen and leadership qualities required of
leaders of the virtual university.
Many
universities see the establishment of virtual education programs as an easy way
to make money outside of their normal operations. If universities focus too
strongly on money-making objectives rather than broader educational and
institutional goals, there is a risk that the program will not receive the care
and attention it needs in order to thrive.
Successful
cooperative arrangements in virtual education require that an artful balance of
power be created between the venture partners. If the power is biased too far in
the direction of one partner rather than the other then the relationship is
likely to be unstable and the venture might not survive.
There
is risk in geographically virtual projects that a program in a remote location
may be perceived as being “less genuine” or less important than normal
programs at the main location of the university. This attitude may lead to
students in the remote location being treated as second-class members of the
university, thereby undermining the value of the program for its recipients.
Unless a university manages to integrate a geographically virtual program,
attitudinally, in to the main repertoire of the institution, then its
perceptions towards the program are likely to have an insidious effect on its
viability.
There
is a natural tendency for virtual programs to develop a distinctive character of
their own, framed by the individual contributions of students, teachers,
circumstances and systems associated with the program. This tendency, in turn,
creates a challenge for the university to maintain a sense of unity of academic
style and philosophy across the diversity of its programs. The university’s
leaders will need to consider the degree to which they wish to retain uniformity
in content and form across nominally equivalent programs offered in different
locations and modes.
Universities
from relatively rich parts of the world offering programs to students in
relatively poor parts of the world will almost always find difficulties in
structuring the pricing and budgeting of those programs in an identical manner
to the manner employed at the home location. In addition, because of the need to
deploy resources from the home location as part of the program, it is almost
always necessary to price the programs at a higher price than is typical for
local programs in the remote location. Hence, the remote program will almost
always appear to be too cheap from the vantage point of the home location, but
too expensive from the vantage point of the remote location. Managers of such
programs will need to be creative and flexible in the manner in which they solve
this and related problems.
Some
universities are reluctant to move in the direction of technological
virtualization for reasons of their educational philosophy; but, at the same
time, may be happy to move in the direction of geographical virtualization, so
long as traditional pedagogies are maintained. However, once geographically
virtual programs are established subtle pressures may be experienced that push
the university incrementally in the direction of technological virtualization,
despite its formal opposition to such a thing happening.
The
organizational virtualization that almost always accompanies technological and
geographical virtualization may inadvertently dilute the brand image of the
primary university if the program is not actively managed with the maintenance
of its academic brand image in mind.
In
strong research universities some kind of practical conflict, centered around
resource allocation decisions, may be experienced between the research goals of
the institution and the educational goals of the institution. In situations
where virtual programs are focused on education rather than research, political
forces arise within the university that may undermine the viability of the
virtual programs. For example, the programs may be viewed simply as a
“necessary evil” to raise money to subsidize the research programs.
It
may be difficult for a university to offer a full repertoire of services,
programs and ancillary activities at a remote location, or in the virtual mode.
This fact may weaken, subtly, the educational value of virtual programs.
Universities need to be vigilant in finding ways to build sophisticated milieux
and rich experiences for students in virtual programs, rivaling those of regular
programs at the primary location of the university.
It
is common for the primary language of students in virtual programs to be
different from that of students and teachers at the primary location of the
university. There are a number of ways that a university may deal with this
reality. These range from teaching the program in the primary language (or
languages) of the students, to requiring all students to be completely competent
in the home language of the primary location. Hybrid arrangements are also
possible where a mixture of languages is employed, or where students may enter
the program not fully competent in the university’s primary language but may
take advantage of the program to gain such competence.
There
are many other ways of dealing with language issues, with or without the use of
translators. Which approach is superior will depend upon the particular goals
and educational philosophy of each university. It is important to recognize that
unless the language challenges are addressed directly and boldly, insidious
process may unfold that have the potential to threaten either the quality of the
educational experience, the reputation of the program, or the satisfaction of
the students. Universities who choose take a “language purist” position may
find that they are faced with either a shortfall in student numbers or an
uncomfortable gap between the official and unofficial language realities of the
programs. Diligence and creativity will be needed, in most cases, to address
these problems.
Making
textbooks, course packages, lecture notes, and other educational materials
available to students in virtual programs may inadvertently place students,
faculty and the organizations involved in ambiguous situations regarding
intellectual property rights. The ensuing difficulties may be exacerbated by
inconsistencies in the laws and traditions of different communities vis-à-vis
intellectual property rights.
In
order to solve financial problems associated with virtual programs it may be
necessary to apply unequal compensation rates to various faculty, depending upon
the source from which they are drawn. However, if the differentials are too
great dissension and poor morale may emerge amongst the financially
disadvantaged faculty. It will probably be necessary to carefully structure and
continually monitor such differentials in order to sustain a healthy and
productive faculty group.
It is important for the primary university to maintain adequate
academic supervision of both student performance and the performance of faculty.
This may be difficult to do in the virtual environment... yet it must be done if
the university is to maintain the value and good reputation of its degrees.
However, the implementation of the university’s policies in monitoring and
maintaining performance standards must be conducted with great sensitivity in
cases when adjunct faculty have been recruited from other universities who
consider their academic status to be at least as meritorious as that of the
faculty at the primary university.
It
appears that while, in principle, virtual education systems can be employed in
any academic field, the vast majority of practical examples tend to fall in to
what may be called “professional” or “application” oriented fields, such
as finance, or business administration. Examples do exist of virtual education
programs in various fields of the arts and sciences (e.g., the Open University
or the
Given
that so much of what is going on in university virtualization is centered on the
use of new technology it is important to place the technological dimensions of
the process in a normative context.
First,
it is imperative that choices of educational mode not be driven by naive and
uncritical acceptance of the latest technology. The choice of technologies and
the choice of technical systems by universities should be driven by their
educational, organizational, and geographic goals, together with a prudent
assessment of their business circumstances -- not the other way around. It is
particularly important that educational considerations be given the strongest
weighting in the decision-making and design of virtualization strategies.
Second,
while early experiments in the virtualization of education were hampered by
crude or clumsy technology, I may confidently say that, by the turn of the
millennium, some sophisticated and robust technological platforms have finally
been produced that make realizing the dream of quality virtual university
education possible. In other words, technological systems have been developed
that are powerful enough to mediate teacher-student and student-student
relationships in a manner that truly competes with the best of conventional
face-to-face classroom learning. However, I cannot overstate how important it is
to recognize that that such technological systems will only work properly as
educational media if the right supporting factors, or complementary assets, are
put in place. These supporting factors include:
- adequate financing arrangements
- adequate technical support staff
- appropriate organizational systems and
routines
- sophisticated training for educators and
administrators
- committed and competent program managers
- properly planned integration, or coupling,
with the general systems and traditions of the university
- a strategy for managing the evolution of the
systems
- enlightened leadership.
In the absence of such supporting factors major
investments in the technological virtualization of university education will, at
worst, result in embarrassing and costly failures or will, at best, lead to
inferior educational experience for students.
Third,
university leaders and managers should be aware of the risk that poorly planned,
or poorly implemented, programs for technological virtualization may
inadvertently be used as a substitute for good education rather than as a
vehicle to enhance the educational experience of students. In the most egregious
form of this phenomenon, modern information and communication technologies may
be used as little more than delivery mechanisms for the digital equivalent of
textbooks, while authentic teacher-student or student peer interactions
disappear behind a glossy, yet superficial, faćade of Web based
instruction. In its more benign form, poorly planned or poorly implemented
technological virtualization may result in otherwise excellent teachers
inadvertently shifting their professional balance from being educators towards
being de facto system administrators. It is important that university
leaders and teachers be watchful to ensure that technological virtualization be
properly approached as a means of deepening the educational experience of
students rather than as an unintended means for undermining educational
standards.
Fourth,
and finally, while I insist that innovation in the application of educational
technology should be driven by educational considerations, rather than the other
way around, I also wish to caution against rigidity in the maintenance of
traditional pedagogies. In other words, technological innovation may actually
pave the way for valuable modifications to traditional teaching that might not
otherwise have been envisioned. Valuable improvements to education may sometimes
be gained by modifying teaching methods to accommodate technological advance.
While educational principles should always have primacy, management of the
technological virtualization of university education should artfully recognize
the dual direction of the influence between educational innovation and
technological innovation.
---ooo0ooo---
[i]
Betty Collis and Marijk van der Wende, Eds., The Use of Information and
Communication Technology in Higher Education (Enschede, Netherlands:
Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, Universiteit Twente, 1999).
[ii]
W. Earl Sasser, quoted by William
C. Symonds in ÒGiving it the Old Online Try,Ó Business Week
(December 3, 2001), 80.
[iii]
The 50 platforms reviewed for this study are: WebCT,
BlackBoard, Learning Space, IntraLearn, Top Class, eCollege, Click2learn
ToolBook, Authorware, First Class, Docent, LearnLinc, Virtual-U, SiteScape
Forum, Generation 21, Phoenix Pathlore, Saba Learning Enterprise,
Knowledgesoft, VCampus, EduSystem, Serf, LUVIT, Mentorware, The Learning
Manager, QuestionMark, Eloquent, Trainersoft, WebBoard, Convene.com, Quest,
PlaceWare, Embanet, Educator, IVLE, Integrity eLearning, InterWise
Millennium, Theorix, Jones e-education, Prometheus, Anlon, Class Act!,
Colloquia, Southrock, U4all.com, Yahoo! Education, Cetra Symposium,
Trivantis Lectora Publisher, MaxIT LearnerWeb, Learning Vista Express,
Manager`s Edge, and Designer`s
Edge. Data source: Center
for Curriculum, Transfer & Technology (British Columbia, Canada), Online
Educational Delivery Applications: A Web Tool for Comparative Analysis,
November 2001 (http://www.ctt.bc.ca/landonline/).