Change Management

jiscinfonet.ac.uk http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/whole-infokit/?infokit=219

Change is endemic in the education sector. The pressures for change come from all sides: globalisation, changes to the funding and regulatory regime, doing more with less, improving the quality of student learning and the learning experience, and the pace of change is ever increasing. Living with change and managing change is an essential skill for all.

Change is also difficult. There are many different types of change and different approaches to managing change. It is a topic subject to more than its fair share of management fads, quick fixes and guaranteed win approaches. Finding an approach that suits you and your situation goes to the heart of being an effective and professional manager in the education sector. We hope that this resource will help you in this challenge.

The following diagram describes the general route through the materials in the Kit:

Route through the Change Management infoKit

This infoKit was originally developed in 2006 out of a HEFCE Good Management Practice Project led by the University of Luton (now the University of Bedfordshire) entitled ‘Effecting Change in Higher Education’. The project team consulted widely on aspects of change in the sector and put together theories, approaches and tools that resonated with them and with those they talked to about their experiences of the practical difficulties of managing change.

The ‘Effecting Change’ team summarise their findings by the following observations:

There are no easy solutions Adapt processes to suit the change intended Change requires teamwork and leadership (and the two are related) Work with the culture (even when you want to change it) Communicate, communicate, communicate

In the 2014 update we have amended the core model and associated resources with more evidence-based research from projects involving large-scale change, focusing on: organisational efficiency, the student experience, business and community engagement and environmental performance.

Aspects of change

Change usually involves three aspects: people, processes and culture as shown in the figure.

Often the emphasis has been on the processes – get the processes right and everything else will follow. In this resource we have attempted to redress the balance to acknowledge the importance of each aspect.

There are no easy solutions or quick fixes in the infoKit but we have attempted to give you some pathways through the vast array of approaches and tools available by suggesting activities you may undertake at different stages of your change lifecycle.

This infoKit assumes you will be approaching your change activity as a project and we make frequent reference to the P3M suite of resources on project, programme and portfolio management for guidance on a structured approach. We also reference the infoKits on Risk Management and Process Improvement.

Templates

View or download our templates from Google Drive™

Business Case Assessment Form

Presumably you are reading this because you have identified a need for change in your organisation. If you have come to Jisc infoNet then it is also possible that the change has to do with the use of information and learning technology within your organisation although the guidance given in this infoKit can be applied to any type of change project. Alternatively you may have identified a need to improve some aspect of your business processes in which case the infoKit on Process Improvement can help you identify what needs to be done.

Before you begin a major change project, with a particular end goal in sight, you need to know where you are starting from. You might want to think about ways of assessing your baseline position. A baseline is a start point against which you can show that your project has delivered a tangible improvement. This may imply a measurable improvement in time, cost, quality etc but qualitative evidence that the experience of certain stakeholders has improved can be equally valid. By developing a baseline you ensure that you understand the current state of play before you try to change it.

The benefits of capturing a baseline include:

Getting project scope right – baselining gives you an opportunity to refine the scope of your project. Sometimes you will realise you cannot solve a particular problem without tackling one or more related issues Identifying project stakeholders – baselining can help avoid you finding a “skeleton in the closet” further down the line in the form of a stakeholder you should have consulted but didn’t Managing and communicating project scope – baselining helps you manage stakeholder expectations of your project. You may need to make it clear that certain issues are out of scope if you are not to disappoint certain stakeholders Challenging myths – sometimes baselining activity can reveal myths and fallacies that need to be challenged before you can move forward. Often they relate to unspoken assumptions about what aspects of processes and system can and can’t be changed: remember “We’ve always done it that way” is neither a reason nor a justification Showing evidence of improvement – you cannot show how far you have travelled unless you know where you started

You may already know your baseline and have already developed a Business Case for the change – if not you may wish to view specific guidance on developing a Business Case for a Change Project . Our Project Management infoKit provides a template for preparing a Business Case. You will need to be clear about how the proposed change fits in with your institutional Mission and Strategy.

Whether you are still assessing your baseline or have begun moving forward with a change programme, it is equally important to know what you are already doing well. The section on Appreciative Inquiry offers a means of doing just that.

Tools

Many of the tools used for Process Review can also be helpful at the stage of identifying exactly what you need to change and why. Listed below are a number of tools that may help clarify your thinking and allow you to define your project more accurately:

5 Whys – helps analyse a problem Assumption Surfacing and Testing – challenges the ‘inevitable and preordained’ and might help you generate new ideas Backward Planning – can help generate a mind-set that the change can be done Change Variables – allows you to assess the impact of implementing the change to a greater or lesser extent Clarimission – can help you clarify and communicate your goals Clariscope – develops clarity about outcomes and generates ideas about how they can be achieved Prioritisation Matrix – helps you to take better decisions in a transparent way 7S Model – allows you to see how changes in one area may affect others SMART Targets – will help you to monitor whether the desired results are being achieved

The Appreciative Inquiry approach is beginning to demonstrate to academic staff that there is much that is positive in what they do and in their experiences. It has also provided a context in which they are not being ‘told what is wrong and how to fix it’, but a supportive environment in which to try out ideas. Queen’s University Belfast’s Assessment and Feedback project final report

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is a technique for approaching change in a positive way. It can be used to gain an understanding of the baseline situation you are starting from and as a basis for action planning to move forward building on what you are already doing well. The approach is about focusing on the positive as opposed to identifying “what is wrong and what you need to do to fix it”. The approach was developed by Cooperrider and Whitney (2005) who devised a 4D cycle of Discovery, Dream, Design and Destiny with your “affirmative topic of choice” at the centre.

The approach is very flexible and non-prescriptive and the timescale and level of formality at each stage of the cycle will vary depending on the topic and organisational context.

The diagram below shows how Queen’s University Belfast used Appreciative Inquiry to enhance assessment and feedback practice across the organisation taking educational principles for assessment and feedback as its affirmative topic of choice.

To illustrate how the approach worked in practice Queen’s University Belfast has published the appreciative inquiry script that it used in discussions around assessment and feedback practice.

Let’s focus on these positives…Think of a time when you experienced assessment and/or feedback and it was a positive experience. It may not have started that way, but the outcome was positive for you. Discovering what worked well in the past reminds us that we can bring about positive assessment and feedback experiences for ourselves and our students. Building on these capacities envision how you can position yourself to embrace assessment and feedback in a more positive way in the future. Identifying what works, imagine what YOU can do in your modules or the teaching team can undertake to improve assessment and feedback for all.Queen’s University Belfast’s AI script

Brunel University has developed a novel adaptation of Appreciative Inquiry that it used in reviewing the management of its course information. Brunel saw the value of AI but realised that when reviewing processes, people often find it easiest to start by identifying the negative aspects so it combined AI with the work of Edward de Bono and his Six Thinking Hats. In Brunel’s AI workshops stakeholders released their negative thoughts at the door by physically writing them down on post-it notes and sticking them to the black hat. This allowed them to see that the negative views were represented whilst preparing them to move forward and embrace AI. Brunel University has developed a toolkit for others wishing to try out the technique.

Appreciative Inquiry is one approach to reviewing existing practice that fits well with the culture of the education sector. Depending on the type of change you are considering there are however many other types of self evaluation or benchmarking tools that may be of use.

In 2005-2008 Jisc and the HE Academy supported a major programme of benchmarking around technology enhanced learning followed by a programme of transformation known as “Pathfinder” that paved the way for the Academy’s current change programmes and services and the lessons learned from these activities are still of interest.

In the Jisc Course Data programme 87 learning providers completed a self-assessment framework looking at their state of readiness to implement a standardised approach to managing course information. The summarised results are interesting but of greater value to each of the institutions was the dialogue this engendered between parts of the organisation that did not generally see themselves as part of the same overall process.

The University of Central Lancashire used the Jisc Strategic ICT toolkit to undertake an assessment of its level of maturity in relation to strategic use of ICT and was surprised to find its score lower than expected. This produced some interesting dialogue whereby those who were directly involved in the management and delivery of Strategic ICT felt the results of the strategic ICT toolkit were incorrect and those who were not felt the results were correct. This led to a change project reviewing governance and communications around strategic ICT as well as alignment, ownership and responsibility of projects to ensure they were business led. Find out more in the project case study. Overviews developed to support the work of Jisc programmes can also be of use in determining how the situation in your organisation compares with others in the wider sector see for example:

baseline review for the curriculum design programme (2009) overview of the assessment and feedback landscape (2012)

The Measurement Tools wiki offers a host of tools to support organisations in measuring the things they do – either in a standalone way or against a predefined set of criteria. If there is not a specific tool that helps you assess your current state and make plans for moving forward then you might find some of the participatory approaches suggested in our section on engaging stakeholders of use in devising your own approach.

It is always worth looking for data about the processes under consideration in order to be able to challenge attitudes that are based on assumption or myth. The managing course information infoKit includes examples of how the University of Bolton, City University, and Manchester Metropolitan University have all used data about their curriculum and assessment practices to bring about transformation.

Below are some suggested aspects and questions that you might like to think about and some suggested types of evidence that you could use for assessing your baseline and evaluating change.

Aspect of current practice Key questions Types of evidence

Strategy & Policy What strategies & policies have a bearing on this Core institutional topic? documents What does the vocabulary used indicate about how Committee structures this is approached/perceived? Membership of Where does responsibility/authority sit within the relevant committees organisation?

Process How do we do it now? Process maps How does reality match the formal process? Usage stats What workarounds are needed and how often? Interviews How long does it take? SLAs Who is involved? What is the level of take-up where systems/innovations are optional? Where are the bottlenecks? When is information difficult to obtain/not timely?

Infrastructure What institutional infrastructure supports the activity: System inventories

IT Timetables physical estate Usage stats support services Architecture diagrams User feedback Is the infrastructure under/over-used? Can the infrastructure meet demand at all times? How well are elements of the infrastructure integrated? Aspect of current practice Key questions Types of evidence

Stakeholders What is the level of stakeholder satisfaction? NSS Are the right stakeholders involved? Survey data Does responsibility/authority sit in the right areas? Interviews Is there effective communication between all Focus groups stakeholders? Rich pictures

Understanding the nature of the change you wish to effect and the context in which you are working are important in determining an appropriate strategy. Entering uncharted change territory without some sort of route map puts you at an immediate disadvantage from the start. One of the first stages in charting the territory is to understand a little more about the type of change you wish to make (broadly where you want to get to and how you plan to travel).

There are a number of ways in which change can be categorised, most are related to the extent of the change and whether it is seen as organic (often characterised as bottom-up) or driven (top-down).

Ackerman (1997) has distinguished between three types of change:

Developmental – May be either planned or emergent; it is first order, or incremental. It is change that enhances or corrects existing aspects of an organisation, often focusing on the improvement of a skill or process Transitional – Seeks to achieve a known desired state that is different from the existing one. It is episodic, planned and second order, or radical. Much of the organisational change literature is based on this type Transformational – Is radical or second order in nature. It requires a shift in assumptions made by the organisation and its members. Transformation can result in an organisation that differs significantly in terms of structure, processes, culture and strategy. It may, therefore, result in the creation of an organisation that operates in developmental mode – one that continuously learns, adapts and improves.

Planned versus emergent change

Sometimes change is deliberate, a product of conscious reasoning and actions – planned change. In contrast, change sometimes unfolds in an apparently spontaneous and unplanned way. This type of change is known as emergent change. Change can be emergent rather than planned in two ways:

Managers make a number of decisions apparently unrelated to the change that emerges. The change is therefore not planned. However, these decisions may be based on unspoken, and sometimes unconscious, assumptions about the organisation, its environment and the future (Mintzberg, 1989) and are, therefore, not as unrelated as they first seem. Such implicit assumptions dictate the direction of the seemingly disparate and unrelated decisions, thereby shaping the change process by ‘drift’ rather than by design. External factors (such as the economy, competitors’ behaviour, and political climate) or internal features (such as the relative power of different interest groups, distribution of knowledge, and uncertainty) influence the change in directions outside the control of managers. Even the most carefully planned and executed change programme will have some emergent impacts.

This highlights two important aspects of managing change.

The need to identify, explore and if necessary challenge the assumptions that underlie managerial decisions. Understanding that organisational change is a process that can be facilitated by perceptive and insightful planning and analysis and well crafted, sensitive implementation phases, while acknowledging that it can never be fully isolated from the effects of serendipity, uncertainty and chance (Dawson, 1996).

An important (arguably the central) message of recent management of change literature is that organisation-level change is not fixed or linear in nature but contains an important emergent element as identified in the section on complexity theory.

Episodic versus continuous change

Another distinction is between episodic and continuous change. Episodic change, according to Weick and Quinn (1999), is ‘infrequent, discontinuous and intentional’. Sometimes termed ‘radical’ or ‘second order’ change, episodic change often involves replacement of one strategy or programme with another.

Continuous change, in contrast, is ‘ongoing, evolving and cumulative’. Also referred to as ‘first order’ or ‘incremental’ change, continuous change is characterised by people constantly adapting and editing ideas they acquire from different sources. At a collective level these continuous adjustments made simultaneously across units can create substantial change.

Proposed change

The distinction between episodic and continuous change helps clarify thinking about an organisation’s future development and evolution in relation to its long-term goals. Few organisations are in a position to decide unilaterally that they will adopt an exclusively continuous change approach. They can, however, capitalise upon many of the principles of continuous change by engendering the flexibility to accommodate and experiment with everyday contingencies, breakdowns, exceptions, opportunities and unintended consequences that punctuate organisational life (Orlikowski, 1996).

Using these characteristics proposed changes can be placed along two scales: radical – incremental and core – peripheral (Pennington 2003) Plotting the character of a proposed change along these scales can provide a sense of how difficult the introduction of any particular initiative might be and how much disturbance to the status quo it might generate. Radical changes to an institution’s or department’s core business will normally generate high levels of disturbance; incremental changes to peripheral activities are often considered to be unexceptional and can be accommodated as a matter of course, especially if the group involved has a successful past record of continuous improvement.

There are many different models and theories of change as change defies simple attempts to categorise and organise. The last few decades have seen a number of popular theories.

It is helpful to have a model or a framework within which to operate as this can help ensure that most aspects of the proposed change are considered. Which model best suits your circumstances depends in part on institutional culture and personal preferences and you will find that any of the models contain similar elements presented in slightly different ways.

Historical perspectives

This section identifies some of the key theories that have influenced change management thinking over the past 100 years. Scientific management (1910s)

Promoted change as part of achieving efficiency due to better performing the task. Employers having specific responsibilities for achieving better performance and the method encouraged the scientific selection, training, and development of workers. Taylor, who laid the foundations of the Scientific Management sought to achieve change by using the ‘carrot and stick’ approach – by connecting performance to rewards.

Classical school (1910s)

Listed the duties of a manager as planning, organising, commanding employees, coordinating activities, and controlling performance. Change would be achieved through specialization of work, unity of command, and coordination of activities.

The individual perspective school (1920s)

Change can be achieved by changing the behaviour of individuals.

Human relations school (1920s)

Change (influencing performance) by changing informal roles and norms and understanding the attitudes and feelings of workers.

The group dynamics school (1940s)

Change can be achieved by changing the groups and teams, rather than the individuals.

Bureaucracy (1940s)

Change through adherence to procedures, policies. Rationality, uniformity, and consistency in management lead to equitable treatment for all employees.

Leadership (1950s)

Stressed the importance of groups having both social task leaders; differentiated between Theory X and Y management.

Decision theory (1960s)

Suggested that individuals “satisfice” when they make decisions. Participation in decision-making an enabler of change.

Socio-technical school (1960s)

Change introduced through technology and work groups.

Systems theory (1970s)

Represented organizations as open systems with inputs, transformations, outputs, and feedback. Two approaches: hard systems and soft systems.

Contingency theory (1980s)

Change can be successful and drive the organisation forward, if there is a fit between organization processes and characteristics of the situation.

Chaos and complexity theory (1990s) Organisations viewed as complex adaptive systems. Effects of change difficult to predict. Emphasis on creating the conditions for beneficial change to occur.

Olson and Eoyang (2001) have compared traditional change to the Complex Adaptive System (CAS) model of change based on complexity theory.

Traditional Complex Adaptive System

Few variables determine outcomes Innumerable variables determine outcome

The whole is equal to the sum of the parts The whole is different from the sum of the parts (holistic) (reductionist)

Direction is determined by design and the power of Direction is determined by emergence and the a few leaders participation of many people

Individual or system behaviour is knowable, Individual or system behaviour is unknowable, predictable and controllable unpredictable and uncontrollable

Causality is linear: every effect can be traced to a Causality is mutual: Every cause is also an effect, and specific cause every effect is also a cause

Relationships are directional Relationships are empowering

All systems are essentially the same Each system is unique

Efficiency and reliability are measures of value Responsiveness to the environment is the measure of value

Decisions are based on facts and data Decisions are based on tensions and patterns

Leaders are experts and authorities Leaders are facilitators and supporters

Having read this far you will no doubt recognise some of the key characteristics of your college or university environment. Hopefully you will be reassured to know that this is not unique. Others have to operate in similar situations and change, though difficult, is achievable. Olson and Eoyang have also set out some of the questions you need to be asking if you are to lead successful change in a Complex Adaptive System.

Leadership Role Question

Set few specifications by identifying what needs to be addressed and What minimum specifications will lead leaving others to decide how to proceed to productive outcomes?

Distribute control – empower others How can I help? What do you need?

Generate a sense of urgency What do we need to do to meet the deadline?

Monitor and regulate the pace of change What’s missing? What can’t we ignore?

Set the organisational direction Why are we here? What makes us unique?

Explore contradictions, encourage different viewpoints How else might we think about this?

Accept a certain level of internal conflict and differences What are you holding back?

Raise tough questions What do you really think? Why do we have to do it like that?

Encourage diversity Who else needs to be involved? Leadership Role Question

Scan the external environment What are the innovations out there and how will they affect us?

Encourage feedback How am I doing? How are we doing?

Link communities of practice What professional networks do you use?

Loosen or tighten networks Is information flow optimal?

Encourage learning What are your questions? Where might we look for answers?

In reality change, especially large scale change, defies logical rules and simple management actions. Complexity theory and a view of organisations as ‘complex adaptive systems’, attempts to consider some of those realities and arguably provides a better model for change in an education setting (see for example Lewin and Regine (1999), Olson and Eoyang (2001)).

Most textbooks focus heavily on techniques and procedures for long-term planning, on the needs for visions and missions, on the importance and the means of securing strongly shared cultures, on the equation of success with consensus, consistency, uniformity and order. [However, in complex environments] the real management task is that of coping with and even using unpredictability, clashing counter-cultures, disensus, contention, conflict, and inconsistency. In short the tasks that justifies the existence of all managers has to do with instability, irregularity, difference and disorder.

Stacey (1996)

Stacey identifies the following propositions as the basis for complexity theory:

All organisations are webs of non-linear feedback loops connected to other people and organisations by webs of non-linear feedback loops. Such non-linear feedback systems are capable of operating in states of stable and unstable equilibrium, or in the borders between these states, that is far from equilibrium, in bounded instability at the edge of chaos. All organisations are paradoxes. They are pulled towards stability by the forces of integration, maintenance controls, human desires for security and certainty and adaptation to the environment on the one hand. They are also pulled towards the opposite extreme of unstable equilibrium by the forces of division and decentralisation, human desires for excitement and innovation and isolation from the environment. If the organisation gives in to the pull of stability it fails because it becomes ossified and cannot change easily. If it gives in to the pull to instability it disintegrates. Success lies in sustaining an organisation at the border between stability and instability. This is a state of chaos, a difficult to maintain dissipative structure. The dynamics of the successful organisation are therefore those of irregular cycles and discontinuous trends, falling within qualitative patterns, fuzzy but recognizable categories taking the form of archetypes and templates. Because of its own internal dynamic, a successful organisation faces completely unknowable specific futures. Agents within the system cannot be in control of its long-term future, nor can they install specific frameworks to make it successful nor can they apply step-by-step analytical reasoning or planning or ideological controls to long term development. Agents within the system can only do these things in relation to the short term. Long term development is a spontaneous self-organising process from which new strategic directions may emerge. Spontaneous self-organisation is political interaction and learning in groups. Managers have to pursue reasoning by analogy. In this way managers create and discover the environments and the long-term futures of the organisations.

The general approach can be visualized using the Stacey agreement vs certainty matrix:

Stacey Agreement vs Certainty Matrix

Organisational Development promotes the notion that a successful change is a planned change and that monitoring of internal and external influences needs to be conducted on a continuous basis. The diagram below shows some of the factors involved and the model proposes that there is an iterative process of diagnosis, involvement, further diagnosis, change, evaluation and reinforcement.

Already the situation is looking complex. We may be trying to effect a change at any level from individual to whole organisation. The Pugh OD Matrix considers some of the structural and contextual factors involved as a basis for moving forward.

The Organisational Development approach recognises much of the complexity of our organisations and the need for an iterative change process but is nonetheless based on a presumption that a cycle based on careful analysis and planning will deliver a predictable and logical outcome. A Causal Model of Organisational Performance and Change – W Warner Burke & George H Litwin, Journal of Management, Vol 18, No. 3, 523-545 (1992)

Having understood the type of change you wish to make the second part of charting the ‘territory’ is to understand the lie of the land (the culture and political environment in which you are travelling) which will help you avoid the steep climbs and major obstacles where possible and work with the lines of least resistance.

There are two aspects of the issue of culture and change. Firstly, the importance of working with the existing culture when seeking to effect any change; and secondly, how to go about changing the culture itself. Both require shrewd and effective leadership.

When asked ‘what is culture?’ staff in the sector subscribed almost unanimously to the common definition of culture as being ‘the way we do things around here’. Culture involves both the explicit way of working – the formal systems and processes in place and how they operate, and the tacit level of operation – the informal and semi- formal networks and other activities that people employ to get things done and by-pass, subvert or seek to influence the more formal processes.

Culture provides the context for our working lives and defines the standards by which we expect to be judged and the processes and procedures by which we expect to be involved in the activities which affect us. When dealing with change it’s important to recognise that different institutions have different cultures and that within institutions different areas and different academic subjects also have their own way of doing things – their own cultures. Larger departments will contain their own sub-cultures. Thus it is impossible to talk about a generic culture in post compulsory education.

Culture can be transmitted by: The philosophy of the institution – themes like equity and diversity, widening participation, striving for excellence in teaching; research reputation etc. The mission statement The criteria for evaluating and rewarding performance, job progression etc. The approach to change which is adopted The way in which leaders act

Culture is also transmitted in the informal history of the organisation that is shared in stories and legends about key people and events that have affected the organisation.

Lessons learned

Some of those who have effected change in the education sector have noted a few lessons related to the culture.

Organisational cultures – change management

The infoKit on ‘Creating a Managed Learning Environment’ pays a lot of attention to Understanding your Organisation and defines the following types of organisational culture:

Collegiate

There is a dual structure of administrative and academic management which results in parallel committee structures which can act as a black hole for decision making Unclear reporting lines and poor coordination, strong local cultures, agendas and identifiers Academic status is perceived as higher than support or administrative functions There are strong subject-specific allegiances with academics often feeling a stronger alliance to their subject area and external networks than the institutional mission Decision making occurs through committees, which can be slow and lack cohesion Activities tend to be driven from the ground, primarily linked to local interests Classic structure of old universities particularly those with more of a research focus

Bureaucratic

Characterised by strong central management and top-down decision making The hierarchy of control and decision making is clearly established in the administrative and management structures of the institutions Management roles are clearly defined as career progressions, heads of department, deans etc are appointed through an interview process to tenured positions Central management have strong control over the direction of the strategic priorities for the institution Commonly found in FE colleges and new universities

Innovative

Institutions with flexible structures geared to respond and adapt quickly to external factors and influences Strong culture of change and innovation with frequent changes in directions of activities and focus of interest Often characterised by a matrix structure of responsibilities by both subject area and functional activity (where the latter will often be structured around the identified strategic priorities) Typically activities focused around particular projects and associated project teams Characteristic of some new universities and colleges but also present within the old universities within the sub-structure of the institution through enterprise centres and research centres which are externally funded

Enterprise

More closely aligned to traditional businesses and industry approaches Acutely aware of financial mechanism and processes and alert to external opportunities Traditional management roles and structures with clear demarcation of responsibilities and hierarchical decision making processes Clear business objectives and plans based on detailed market analysis and needs More common in America, particularly in some of the newer institutions which are focused on distance education

This definition by Professor Grainne Conole can be mapped onto the work of McNay (1995) to identify some features of each type of organisation that are useful to consider when trying to implement change:

Factor Collegiate Bureaucratic Innovative Enterprise

Dominant value Freedom Equity Loyalty Competence

Role of central Permissive Regulatory Directive Supportive authorities

Handy’s Person Role Power Task organisational culture

Department/individual Faculty/committees Institution/senior Sub-unit/project Dominant unit management team teams

Informal groups Committees and Working parties and Project teams networks administrative Senior Management Decision arenas briefings team

Consensual Formal/’rational’ Political/tactical Devolved Management style leadership

Timeframe Long Cyclic Short/mid term Instant

Environmental fit Evolution Stability Crisis Turbulence

Organic innovation Reactive adaptation Proactive Tactical flexibility Nature of change transformation

Invisible college Regulatory bodies Policy makers as Clients/sponsors External referents opinion leaders

The discipline The rules The plans Market Internal referents strength/students

Basis for Peer assessment Audit of procedures Performance indicators Repeat business evaluation

Student status Apprentice academic Statistic Unit of resource Customer

The community The committee The chief executive The client, Administrator internal and roles: servant external of… Badly handled change can actually prove costly and devastating and actually move the institution backwards

From Learning from a ‘triple whammy’ of change case study.

Five different broad approaches to effecting change were identified by Thurley and Wirdenius (1973) and summarised by Lockitt (2004).

1. Directive strategies

This strategy highlights the manager’s right to manage change and the use of authority to impose change with little or no involvement of other people. The advantage of the directive approach is that change can be undertaken quickly. However, the disadvantage of this approach is that it does not take into consideration the views, or feelings, of those involved in, or affected by, the imposed change. This approach may lead to valuable information and ideas being missed and there is usually strong resentment from staff when changes are imposed rather than discussed and agreed

2. Expert strategies

This approach sees the management of change as a problem solving process that needs to be resolved by an ‘expert’. This approach is mainly applied to more technical problems, such as the introduction of a new learner management system, and will normally be led by a specialist project team or senior manager. There is likely to be little involvement with those affected by the change. The advantages to using this strategy is that experts play a major role in the solution and the solution can be implemented quickly as a small number of ‘experts’ are involved. Again, there are some issues in relation to this strategy as those affected may have different views than those of the expert and may not appreciate the solution being imposed or the outcomes of the changes made

3. Negotiating strategies

This approach highlights the willingness on the part of senior managers to negotiate and bargain in order to effect change. Senior managers must also accept that adjustments and concessions may need to be made in order to implement change. This approach acknowledges that those affected by change have the right to have a say in what changes are made, how they are implemented and the expected outcomes. The disadvantage to this approach is that it takes more time to effect change, the outcomes cannot be predicted and the changes made may not fulfil the total expectations of the managers affecting the change. The advantage is that individuals will feel involved in the change and be more supportive of the changes made

4. Educative strategies

This approach involves changing people’s values and beliefs, ‘winning hearts and minds’, in order for them to fully support the changes being made and move toward the development of a shared set of organisational values that individuals are willing, and able to support. A mixture of activities will be used; persuasion; education; training and selection, led by consultants, specialists and in-house experts. Again, the disadvantage of this approach is that it takes longer to implement. The advantage is that individuals within the organisation will have positive commitment to the changes being made 5. Participative strategies

This strategy stresses the full involvement of all of those involved, and affected by, the anticipated changes. Although driven by senior managers the process will be less management dominated and driven more by groups or individuals within the organisation. The views of all will be taken into account before changes are made. Outside consultants and experts can be used to facilitate the process but they will not make any decisions as to the outcomes. The main disadvantages of this process are the length of time taken before any changes are made, it can be more costly due to the number of meetings that take place, the payment of consultants/experts over a longer time period and the outcomes cannot be predicted. However, the benefits of this approach are that any changes made are more likely to be supported due to the involvement of all those affected, the commitment of individuals and groups within the organisation will increase as those individuals and groups feel ownership over the changes being implemented. The organisation and individuals also have the opportunity to learn from this experience and will know more about the organisation and how it functions, thus increasing their skills, knowledge and effectiveness to the organisation

The five change strategies are not mutually exclusive and a range of strategies can be employed to effect change. Part of the skill of effective change management is to recognise what strategy/ies to employ, when, where and how to use them. Other issues such as health and safety, accessibility and union representation may also need to be taken into consideration when deciding what strategy to adopt.

The change management strategies and their main advantages and disadvantages can be summarised as follows:

Change Management Strategies – Copyright 3T Productions Ltd (2004)

You can probably already judge that some of these approaches are less likely to be successful than others in the education environment. Indeed we would take a more negative view than Lockitt as to whether the ‘expert’ approach could be applied to an IT system implementation especially where the system was to be used by, or impacted upon, the academic community. Key to this is the issue that ‘those affected may have different views than those of the expert’. It would be overly cynical to state that we operate in an environment where ‘everybody is an expert’ because there may be very valid reasons why different stakeholders hold very different views.

Don’t try and make “one size fit all”. Teaching staff are professionals and, once engaged, will come up with a wide diversity of ideas and approaches.

Professor, Post ’92 University

Templates

View or download our templates from Google Drive™

Business case Risk log

Having established what type of change you are intending to make and within what type of organisational culture you are operating you are now in a position to consider your overall strategy.

On the other hand you may already be doubting the feasibility/desirability of your plans. At this point it may be wise to review the Business Case for the change. Developing a business case is not necessarily a one-off activity. As with any project, if your change initiative is a large scale and lengthy project, you may need to review the business case at key points. Similarly you should be developing a Risk Log and Risk Management Plan that is regularly reviewed and updated.

This may also be a good point at which to reflect on previous change initiatives within your organisation to identify the approaches taken and consider the implications for your current project. One tool you can use to do this is the Change Audit.

It used to be a rule of thumb in the post-compulsory education sector that, in order to change anything, you had first to set up a project, give it an acronym (the sillier the better) and then go out and get stakeholders behind the project by creating and maintaining a strong brand.

Many change projects are now finding that, although the rigour of managing the process as a formal project is important, the question of brand identity is a double-edged sword and in some cases a strong brand can work against wider and deeper embedding of change by singling the activity out as something different rather than part of continuous evolution.

Projects are instead focusing on showing themselves to be responsive to their institutional context and priorities and are aligning themselves to other initiatives where they are content to be seen in a supporting role. Some projects indeed describe themselves as taking a guerilla approach to transformational change. By this they mean they are providing specific solutions to institutional problems in order to win gradual support for the broader strategic approaches they advocate rather than trying to ‘sell the big idea’ up front. This is indeed a sensible approach in any large-scale change initiative especially those which relate in some way to the use of new technologies. The clear message that the project is addressing real business needs and priorities is one that gains credibility when the strategic plan is in the driving seat and the project fulfils a supporting role. Such an approach is also helpful in organisations that risk suffering initiative fatigue with too many changes taking place at the same time.

An excellent example of showing where a project sits in terms of strategic objectives and other initiatives is the Cardiff University PALET project Motherboard. PALET Motherboard

The project location and staffing are also of relevance in this context. Wherever possible project staff should be perceived as neutral and work through existing channels without setting up any new power base.

A possible downside to this type of approach is that the project could be seen to lack clear direction and be at the whim of many different stakeholders and hence at risk of scope creep. On the other hand the value of the flexibility to be responsive and deliver some quick wins should not be underestimated. The University of Greenwich has provided a helpful set of questions for projects in a similar situation wondering whether to accommodate stakeholder requests to achieve a quick win:

Has the project identified clear overall goals, deliverables and activities? Do you have a strong sponsor/champion with sufficient influence to deliver the quick win? Is the balance between investment of time and impact of change weighted towards low investment and high impact? Are the main beneficiaries of the change central to the wider change your project seeks to deliver? To what extent is the change proposed a recognised/shared business imperative? Are you confident that the primary agents of change will deliver what they promise in the required timescale? Is the project in a position to delegate work to others and/or lever additional resources?

In some cases your project may be simply laying the (absolutely essential) foundations for further change. This could take the form of technical underpinning that is relatively invisible to the end user but which cannot succeed unless cultural and other changes take place. In such cases it can be particularly difficult to get the required support.

The University of Bristol recognised this as an issue in trying to promote a move to service oriented approaches in its core data integration project, “Getting senior level buy-in for significant investment in something that is not clearly visible to the end-user – ie middleware – and which may involve high upfront costs and a longer time before benefits are realised is a challenge that requires a lot of strong evidence and good communication with a non-technical audience.” In this instance the University project team was able to make a good case and benefited from a clear roadmap and effective governance model. For more detail see the project case study.

Checklists and templates

Kings College London has produced a checklist to act as a guide to undertaking an evaluation of your own competence in several key areas and are developing an Action Plan for personal development.

Checklist for planners and leaders of change Action plan template

Any large-scale change initiative will involve summoning support for the changes from across the organisation. Staff may take on a number of different roles in relation to the change process. This section identifies these roles and their application in an educational setting (depending on the nature and scale of the change not all roles may be appropriate to any particular change).

It should be noted that the language of change management can itself be a barrier to effecting change within a college or university setting where change titles such as ‘change agent’ are not widely used and if applied are likely to meet with scepticism and some resistance. For example, calling Heads of Department ‘change agents’ may not meet with approval! The roles required to effect change will however exist in any successful change process. Sometimes it can be beneficial to use the terminology to clearly signal the need to change.

Whatever the language used, there needs to be a clear understanding of the key roles; lack of clarity about roles and expectations is one of the biggest barriers to success. The roles are very similar to the roles of Sponsor, Manager and Champion involved in any project.

The change team, in other words the group of staff charged with implementing the change, must have the confidence of both management and staff affected by the change. They will:

be drawn from all areas affected by the change demonstrate commitment to the change (essential) need to be given the time and recognition to undertake the role support the change manager in undertaking his/her role and responsibilities

It is critical that you get the right mix of people in the team and that you create the conditions for them to succeed.

An overlap of roles is not uncommon – while acting as part of a change team, colleagues will most likely act as change participants as well making changes to their own practices. This can cause personal conflict, and create a risk to the change initiative. For example, a change agent, who would need to act as a role model, may initially have conflicting views about the change situation, and thus may find it difficult to fulfil the change agent role.

Change roles are often given to individuals with minimal consideration of the consequences. General factors to be considered when apportioning roles include:

Getting the balance of the team right (representation of all areas affected, authority, experience, skills etc) Providing sufficient time to undertake the expected roles Meeting any training needs for the new roles

In the education setting a change manager has to deal with a large number of individuals with potentially differing viewpoints and also with an equally large number of groups and committees. Responsibility Charting can help you clarify the decision making process in your organisation (see further resources). “Change agents are expected to utilise strong facilitation and coaching skills, but conflict management skills learned from ACAS have also been extremely useful.” University of Central Lancashire

Case study

Perspectives on Leading in an Academic Environment

Before we begin to define individual roles it is worth saying a few things about leadership. Few would disagree that good leadership is critical to successful change but equally few will be able to define exactly what that constitutes in our environment.

There is a clear distinction between management and leadership. Management is a set of processes that keep a complex system running smoothly. Leadership defines the future and aligns people with that future. We often find that too much emphasis is placed on managing change and not enough on leading change.

Kotter (1995) has identified eight important steps in leading change. Although these derive from a business perspective and may require some translation, they have some validity for change in education, especially transformational change.

1. Establish a sense of urgency: examine market and competitive realities. Identify and discuss crises, potential crises or major opportunities 2. Form a powerful guiding coalition: assemble a group with enough power to lead the change effort and encourage the group to work together as a team 3. Create a vision: this helps direct the change effort. Develop strategies to support that vision 4. Communicate the vision: use every vehicle possible to communicate the new vision and strategies. The coalition has to lead by example 5. Empower others to act: get rid of the obstacles to change. Change structures that undermine the vision, encourage risk-taking and non-traditional ideas, activities and actions 6. Plan for and create short-term wins: plan for visible performance improvements, create those improvements and recognise and reward employees involved 7. Consolidate improvements: use increased credibility to change systems, structures and policies that don’t fit the vision, hire, promote and develop employees who can implement the vision. Reinvigorate the process with new projects, themes and change agents 8. Institutionalise the new approach: articulate the connections between new behaviours and corporate success. Develop the means to ensure leadership development and succession

In public sector organisations in the 21st century, and certainly in colleges and universities, leadership is not something which is solely the prerogative of senior management. Aspects of the leadership of change may extend to any part and any level of the organisation and our discussion of change roles should be read with this in mind. Within ‘old’ universities in particular many Heads are appointed on a temporary basis. From a change perspective this has both advantages (for example, a fresh perspective) and disadvantages (lack of continuity, and a sense that everything is temporary and that staff can ride out any impetus).

Quotes from the case studies

It is important to try to encourage ownership of the change process by all senior managers as soon as possible and not permit them to leave driving the initiative to one department only. From Implementing a VLE at the Belfast Institute of F&HE: Changing the Culture Case Study Disseminating good practice throughout the institution gets people excited about the proposed changes.

From Effects of Business Development and Knowledge Transfer on institutional culture Case Study

Going around barriers taught us a lesson or two about building alliances, capturing enthusiasm, empowering the right people and the effectiveness of rewarding change.

From Changing Teaching and Learning Styles Case Study

Success affects the culture of the institution too – the belief that we can replicate success boosts morale, and confidence.

From Effects of Business Development and Knowledge Transfer on institutional culture Case Study

Making space for people to try new things is crucial when you are trying to effect change.From Effects of Business Development and Knowledge Transfer on institutional culture Case Study

The group of staff charged with implementing the change – they must have the confidence of both the management and the staff affected by the change. They:

Will be drawn from all areas affected by the change Demonstrate commitment to the change (essential) Will need to be given the time and recognition to undertake the role Support the change manager in undertaking his/her role and responsibilities.

It is critical that you get the right mix of people in the team and that you create the conditions for them to succeed.

Change roles are often given to individuals with minimal consideration of the consequences. General factors to be considered when apportioning roles include:

Change manager

Someone with the expertise to lead the change, and can act as a role model for the new reality. May be an experienced project or change manager within the organisation or, possibly, brought in from outside with specific responsibility for managing the change.

The change manager has responsibility for the day-to-day implementation of the change:

Designs the change process, strategy and approach, and agrees these with the change team. Takes responsibility and manages the change progress on a day-to-day basis. Designs the communication strategy and contingency plans for the change. Monitors progress. Facilitates key events to build commitment for the change. Liaises up and down the organisational structure.

Change sponsor

Someone who has the authority, seniority, power, enthusiasm, and time to lead/carry through/oversee the changes. The change sponsor may not get involved with the day-to-day management of the change but should support and monitor progress. Usually he or she is a senior member of the management team given responsibility for effecting the change.

The change sponsor must ensure that the necessary resources are available throughout the change process and accepts ultimate responsibility for the successful change implementation:

Agrees the change strategy and approach. Is an active champion and role model for the ‘new reality’. Monitors and communicates change progress to interested parties.

The type of person that became a change agent was willing to experiment, ready to change, and had a good understanding of educational developments.

From Changing Teaching and Learning styles Case Study

The change agents are those people that really make the difference implementing the change at a local level. This will depend on the nature of the change but the role often falls to middle managers because they have the influence and authority to make the change take place.

Care needs to be taken, as middle management shouldn’t be treated as ‘the meat in the sandwich’ – effective change agents need to be dedicated to the change process and should be provided with the support and given time to adjust and accept the changes before they are to summon commitment from their departments.

Work needs to be undertaken to get commitment from this key group of staff when implementing change – they are the key to implementing change processes effectively.

Change agents are responsible for facilitating the change through:

Gaining commitment for the changes. Facilitating evaluation activities. Monitoring and reporting progress of change. Consulting and identifying bottlenecks/sources of resistance. Disseminating lessons learned.

The following seven winning characteristics of the successful change agent is derived from a study of the implementation of change in higher education.

Has a sense of purpose

Is fully aware of the need to change. Has a vision of what can be achieved. Is realistic about the scale and timescale for change. Is flexible about the means to achieve the change. Understands the change process.

Has the capability to Act

Has leadership and interpersonal skills, with political awareness. Has a means to promote change (i.e. a role, a project, resources or influence). Has knowledge of the institution, its history and its influential characters. Develops the influential team.

Sells Success

Ensures that early successes are achieved. Focussed on spreading successful practice. Has a communications strategy for selling success. Builds appropriate networks to facilitate communication. Understands others’ priorities in order to offer them clear benefits. Offers support and encouragement, not another problem.

Is strategically connected

Is well connected with sources of power and influence. Builds a critical mass of senior people or a senior champion. Ensures senior links will last and do not depend on one individual. Understands the senior management agenda and sells benefits. Makes the link between strategy and operations. Encourages senior people to learn by experience.

Is critically reflective

Builds a non-threatening environment. Encourages learning from failure as well as success. Makes critical reflection a part of all plans and agendas. Promotes reflection at every level i.e. personal, team department, and institutional. Records important learning points so they don’t depend on memory.

Builds supporting structures

Ensures mechanisms are in place to continue the innovation and to spread it. Embeds the innovation by making it an important part of a wider strategy. Supports the innovation with appropriate resources for teaching and learning. Ensures that future innovation will also be supported and embedded. Develops processes to respond to the needs of institutional ‘stakeholders’.

Is opportunistic Predicts and uses external and internal levers for change, including political forces. Makes use of all available resources, including students, employers and alumni. Notices and secures external funding which will support (not dictate) the change. Encourages innovation, for example with protected money for innovative projects.

Change champion

These are the early adopters, colleagues who want the change implementation to succeed, and believe that the change will be beneficial to the Institution. The change champions will be members of staff affected by the change. They do not have to have management responsibilities.

The change champion will make an excellent change agent, but may not always want the excess work associated with the change. The change manager must decide how to make use and reward the enthusiasm and support of the change champions.

The change champions are the natural marketeers for the organisational change and act as catalysts for others. They will speak positively about the change, show that it can be done and support colleagues at an informal level. They give recognition when new behaviours are demonstrated.

Templates

View or download our templates from Google Drive™

Stakeholder analysis Stakeholder interest and influence

A key element of sustaining and embedding the outputs and outcomes of any project is to effectively engage stakeholders throughout your project’s lifecycle. There are three key aspects to stakeholder engagement.

1. Identify – who has a stake in your project and who will be affected by it (change participants) 2. Assess – your stakeholders’ attitudes towards the project, the power they have over it and their requirements of you

a. Attitude: supportive or concerned/resistant b. Power: interest and influence c. Requirements: specific needs and/or support

3. Engage – designing strategies to keep your stakeholders on board

In education you ignore this at your peril. Effective stakeholder engagement is critical to the success of any change project. Actually engaging stakeholders is different to merely having a communications plan. A useful concept in thinking about this is the notion of a ‘ladder of engagement’ (Arnstein, 1969) – the rungs of the ladder move from non-participation and tokenistic participation through to partnership and, ultimately, full citizen power. In an educational setting it is perhaps more appropriate to think of levels of engagement in terms of stakeholders’ (as opposed to citizens’) potential influence over the project – the higher up the ladder the more potential a stakeholder has to influence that project.

Ladder of engagement – Arnstein (1969)

#1 Identifying stakeholders

The first step in identifying your project’s stakeholders is to simply draw up a list. Approaches vary in terms of focusing on specific individuals or stakeholder groups; start with whichever feels more comfortable to you. It may be helpful however to think through: Which of your organisational strategies the proposed change affects and who has managerial responsibility and oversight/authority The organisational processes/systems being affected and who has control over them Who is involved in the process being affected and whose habitual behaviour will have to change Who relies on, or makes use of the outputs of, the process/system but is not engaged in inputting to it Those indirectly affected by the system, if at all

Once you have a comprehensive list it can be extremely useful to get your project sponsor/senior manager to sign it off. This helps to ensure that you do not get a stakeholder emerging unexpectedly in the middle of your project, which may derail it. Whatever you do, don’t forget students! (See ‘students as change agents’ below.)

#2 Stakeholder assessment

A better understanding of who your stakeholders are really helps when it comes to defining your engagement strategies. It also helps you to prioritise stakeholder groups/individuals which can save you a lot of time once your project or change initiative really gets going.

Perhaps the easiest place to start, especially if you’re familiar with the context in which you’re working, is an assessment of the influence and interest people have over/in your project. This can be achieved using a simple matrix, shown below.

Stakeholder interest and influence diagram – view in Google Docs If a stakeholder is very interested in your project and has a lot of influence over it then they should be considered a key player and it will be better to engage them face to face. If a stakeholder has no interest in or influence over your project then a written notification might suffice.

If you haven’t already, then at this point it’s probably worth going out and talking to your stakeholders; the GOAT (go out and talk) approach was used by Liverpool John Moores University in the Jisc Transformations project ‘Doing Digital’. Not only will this help you to update your interest/influence matrix, you’ll start to get a feel for their attitude towards the project, and any requirements they might have.

Assessing stakeholders’ attitudes

Manchester Metropolitan University developed a Stakeholder Analysis Template back in 2009 (p. 5) which provides a really useful way of recording and representing the attitudes of key stakeholders. Not only does it summarise their attitude, eg blocker or advocate, it highlights their current feelings towards the project and describes what the ideal situation would be along a continuum: against it happening; let it happen; help it happen; and make it happen.

Example stakeholder analysis template – Manchester Metropolitan University

Engaging with stakeholders

Assessing identified stakeholders helps you to:

Develop an understanding of the barriers to change Identify the levers to change i.e. benefits Understand how best to communicate key messages

All of this information will help you to determine how best to engage with different stakeholders from across your project. The table below summarises a number of approaches used across Jisc programmes and projects, the effort required and level of influence afforded to a stakeholder through that approach. It’s by no means comprehensive but it does provide a useful way of thinking about the types of approach you adopt.

Influence Approach Effort afforded

Blogging – perhaps best described as a web-based diary, generally used to provide a Medium Low more open account of your activities.

Codesign – involves stakeholders from the outset of a project, from the initial generation High High of ideas through to their development and delivery.

Email bulletin – an easy way to send updates to a large group of people, typically one- Low Low way. Influence Approach Effort afforded

Email list – open/private space where online discussions can take place. Low Medium

Focus groups – an organised event that allows you to gain a better understanding of High Medium individuals feelings/opinions about something.

Networks (establish champions) – a group of connected people through which Medium Low messages can be passed. Champions are typically influential within that network and can be used to amplify key messages or ideas.

Participatory approaches – an organised event which brings a group of people together High High to seek their opinions, extract their knowledge and to solve problems in a collaborative and creative environment.

Posters – a passive way of sharing information about a specific topic. Typically presented Medium Low on notice boards within a public space.

Presentation – a short talk, often supported by visual aids, to explain a new idea/area of Medium Low work or convey key messages.

Service design – an approach where the end-users are the main focus and the users’ High High experience is viewed holistically

Social media – varies, but typically involves a range of interactions between individuals Low Low within an online community.

Surgery – a dedicated time slot where individuals can find out more about a particular Medium Low area of work on a one-to-one basis.

World Cafe – a simple but powerful technique for tapping into collective intelligence, High Medium based around conversation in a convivial setting where ‘every voice counts’.

We’ve noticed that the more influence you afford stakeholders over the project, the more likely it is to succeed. Especially where a project lacks senior management support – it results in a ‘groundswell’ so to speak. You need to strike a balance however, as the effort required for that level of engagement is very high. Intersperse the more participatory approaches with regular updates, providing your project with a communicative rhythm.

Students as change agents

Received wisdom has it that it is notoriously difficult to involve students in projects because of their commitments and relatively short-term engagement with the institution. Recent experience from Jisc projects however suggests otherwise. There is now a considerable body of evidence to show that effective engagement with learners in terms of a genuine partnership can bring enormous benefits to projects.

Examples include:

Birmingham City University’s Student Academic Partnership scheme University of Exeter’s work on Students as Change Agents Bath Spa/Winchester Universities’ work with Student Fellows to improve assessment and feedback practice on the FASTECH project

… the novice-expert dynamic has been overturned. Two years into the project, we have observed and reflected on the fact that it is not us who are privileging the Student Fellows by awarding them with these important roles, but rather we who are privileged because of the insights we have gained from being allowed into their worlds. Student Fellows have given us an honest insight into what goes on behind the scenes when technology is brought into the mix and how re-shaping feedback influences their confidence, self-belief, well-being, subject knowledge and collaborative skills.Bath Spa University and University of Winchester

Our top five tips

1. Be resilient, don’t give up! Change doesn’t occur overnight and this holds true of your stakeholders’ attitudes 2. Build upon previous success stories. Concentrate on the low-hanging fruit – successfully delivering small change helps to build confidence in your ability to deliver transformational change 3. Have your elevator pitch with you and ready at all times, you never know who you might meet on your way to the 5th floor 4. Appeal to different learning styles eg visual, audio and kinaesthetic. If you fail to engage an individual or group, try again, use a different mode of delivery 5. Use your personal networks to reach key individuals that you might not easily have access to

It is highly likely that you will have all of the skills and expertise needed to establish what needs changing, propose a way forward and effect the change within your own organisation. Having said that, it is equally likely that during a major change project you could benefit from some kind of external support. We are not talking here about particular technical or specialist expertise that you may need for specific aspects of a project that involves process improvement and/or the implementation of new technologies but more about general support during the change process. There are many reasons for this, for example:

externals have a degree of objectivity that can often help those within the organisation to achieve clarity more quickly talking the issues through with externals often gives project teams greater confidence in their own insights many people, not least senior managers, feel reassured that there is some kind of external validation of the way forward often you can learn from the mistakes that others have already made

We are thus not advocating that you bring somebody in to tell you how to do it right (see also the section on appreciative inquiry) but rather that you look at the most effective way of facilitating the process of change within your organisation. Very often this is best achieved by finding a way to leverage the expertise of others within the sector who share a cultural frame of reference and are thus well able to place your project into an appropriate context. Such approaches often work better than bringing in experts from other industry segments who may find themselves trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

In the following sections we look at some approaches that have worked well in change projects in the education sector. They include:

the use of a critical friend to work with the project team a whole team (or perhaps even wider) approach to sharing practice across organisations via the CAMEL model and a more individualised staff development approach through participation in an action learning set a low-cost approach through the use of existing Jisc resources

The approaches are not mutually exclusive and can be combined in various ways to good effect. The right choice for you will depend partly on your organisational culture and partly on available resources to fund external support (bearing in mind that this can often be a very cost-effective way to avoid expensive mistakes).

The critical friend is a powerful idea, perhaps because it contains an inherent tension. Friends bring a high degree of unconditional positive regard. Critics are, at first sight at least, conditional, negative and intolerant of failure. Perhaps the critical friend comes closest to what might be regarded as ‘true friendship’ – a successful marrying of unconditional support and unconditional critique. John MacBeath, Professor of Education Leadership, Cambridge University

The concept of a critical friend has gained a lot of ground in the sector in recent years without there being a clearly acknowledged origin or definitive reference source. There are references to the critical friend being both a person and a process and to the use of the term ‘critical’ meaning key or important (as in challenging a tendency for individuals or organisations to avoid difficult issues) as well as referring to critiquing as a review technique. The practice is widely used across the UK public sector but, given its obvious alignment with scholarly review processes, it is perhaps unsurprising that it has found favour with many change projects in the education sector.

There are many parallels with the use of mentoring and of coaching as a non-directive approach to support learning by helping learners explore issues and gain a more objective view that can help them find the best solutions for themselves. Coaching puts conversation at the heart of a supportive and developmental process and the coach does not offer advice or make suggestions but facilitates the exploration of issues and possible options in a way that supports autonomous learning.

The practice of appointing a critical friend to work with individual, and groups of, projects has been applied in many Jisc innovation programmes with considerable success. The role of the critical friend in these projects has often gone beyond the facilitation role of a coach to being an independent expert, an advocate for the work of the project, a means of leveraging external networks and a source of suggestions and examples. It goes without saying however that the relationship is unique in each instance and the important thing is for each project and the critical friend to define roles and responsibilities in a way that works for them.

Jisc has produced an infoKit based on the experiences of critical friends who have worked with its projects. It looks at issues such as choosing the right critical friend, establishing the ground rules for effective working and dealing with difficult issues.

It’s about practice warts and all – and the warts are more interesting than the practice sometimes Quote from CAMEL participant

CAMEL was originally short for Collaborative Approaches to the Management of E-Learning. CAMEL was a HEFCE-funded project led by Jisc infoNet in partnership with the Association for Learning Technology (ALT) and the Higher Education Academy. The original project in 2006 led to widespread adoption of the model by the participating organisations and the universities and colleges involved.

The model is one of a Community of Practice learning together through a series of structured study visits to each of the partner organisations. It has its origins in a self-help group formed many years ago by a number of small farmers in Uruguay.

Key features of that group that were incorporated into the CAMEL model are that the study visits:

were planned collaboratively were documented before and after were focused on things that matter were expertly facilitated were formally evaluated had a strong emphasis on tacit knowledge and making this explicit …you could be forgiven for thinking that it sounds a little tree-hugging/bean-baggy. That’s certainly what I thought when I read-up on the process which deliberately veers away from problem solving and instead concentrates on giving individuals space to reflect on their work. But it’s worked really well…” Dave White, University of Oxford

Action Learning as an approach is credited to Reg Revans who developed the technique based on his experiences as a physicist at Cambridge University where eight (future) Nobel prize winners met regularly to discuss their experiments. They didn’t meet to convince each other how clever they were but “to see if we can understand our own difficulties.“ Revans used the technique when working for the National Coal Board in the 1940s and it has been popular in the UK public sector since that time.

The essence of the method is people being prepared to understand the limitations of their own knowledge, to develop new ideas through insights received from questioning by others and to test those ideas in action and reflect upon the results.

Revans summed up the approach in a formula:

L = P + Q

Where L = learning; P = programming (knowledge already established) and Q = questioning to create insight into what people see, hear or feel.

It is recognised ignorance not programmed knowledge which is the key to action learning. Reg Revans, Revans, R. (1983), ‘Action Learning: Its Origins and Nature,’ in Pedler, M. (ed.) Action Learning in Practice. Gower, Aldershot, pp 5-13.

Marquardt (2009) adapted the formula to read:

L = P + Q + R

Where R = reflection.

The technique is one that focuses very much on the individual and hence it is used in management development programmes more frequently than within project teams. The approach has however been used by Jisc to support project managers (see section on Applying action learning).

Action learning usually takes place in groups known as action learning sets (ALS). The aim of the set is not to resolve issues together but rather to help each individual member accelerate their own rate of learning with the support and challenge of the other group members. The optimum size for an action learning set is generally thought to be around 4-7 members. If there are too many then not all can participate fully and if there are too few there may not be sufficient diversity of experience and opinion within the group.

Being part of an ALS offers a range of opportunities, including:

time and space for your own reflections insights from others/with others different perspectives and ideas with/from others knowledge and experiences of others being questioned by others support from others challenge by others sharing confusions with others sharing successes with others – and learning from them hearing yourself be helpful – and gaining in confidence ‘hearing yourself think – and respond’ building your questioning and listening skills moving forward to address a problem or manage task – having committed yourself to action

The ALS will have structured meetings. These can be either face to face or virtual. Experience suggests the approach requires a degree of trust which may be best fostered by meeting face to face initially although entirely online sets have been successful.

After three ALS sessions I’m pleased to report that the format does translate into the ‘virtual’ very nicely. It’s a classic case of people needing to get-to-know one another and build a modicum of trust before the conversation flows in an ‘honest’ manner.

… if you are taking part in an online Action Learning Set and you are trying to build trust online hold-out for at least three sessions, it’s well worth the wait. Dave White, University of Oxford

The ALS agrees how its meetings will be organised but each member usually has a turn to focus on their project or issues at every meeting. The speaker will usually take about a third of the allocated time to present to the rest of the group who will listen actively and then formulate questions to help that member clarify the issues in hand and identify actions to take.

The action is of course as important as the discussion at the meeting and each member is accountable for taking action. In subsequent meetings they will then reflect on the outcomes of that action.

When starting up an ALS members will establish a series of ground rules that are likely to include confidentiality and behaviour during meetings.

An ALS will often appoint a facilitator to help each participant gain the maximum from the learning opportunities presented. Some advocates of the model believe that sets can self-organise without the need for this role but experience from change projects in the education sector indicates that those new to the approach welcome this type of support. The interventions of the ALS facilitator are not those of a tutor, expert or Chair. Their focus is closer to those of a mentor or coach whose aim is to empower participants. To this end, the tasks of the facilitator include:

introducing, explaining and modelling the core process and skills of action learning ensuring that the process of action learning is maintained with all group members respecting the agreed process and limits/ground rules ensuring that time is fairly distributed across the set members nurturing effective learning that focuses on listening, questioning and developing deeper understanding encouraging the group beyond superficial analysis developing group trust and confidentiality and creates safety for individual members to explore sensitive issues ensuring that all members are actively involved without allowing one or two members to dominate the set promoting reflection on the individual and group learning process encouraging participants to challenge and experiment with the process with awareness helping participants observe all levels of their experience – what they felt, thought, sensed – that emerge within the process enabling the group to draw out general points of learning and evaluate learning outcomes

Experiences of Jisc ALS (Action Learning Sets) participants

… as we took it in turns to listen to each other talk about project issues, ask helpful questions and make practical suggestions. I noticed how often people said ’thanks, that’s a really great idea!’ People seemed to find the human contact reassuring. Project Manager, King’s College London

I have to admit I was sceptical about how useful these would be when we were first asked to participate in them but they’re actually incredibly helpful – for both reassurance and shared learning. Project Manager, Coventry University

… ‘problem-solving’ would be an erroneous approach, especially as everyone involved comes from institutions of differing character so the specifics vary. The value in the ALS is not in directly finding solutions but in having a space in which it becomes clear that everyone is negotiating similar overarching challenges and that it’s not all about being clever with technology. Dave White, University of Oxford

Not all views of the experience are however quite so positive and this quote comes from the critical friend to a group of projects for whom the technique did not work and therefore had to be modified:

The participants found it a frustrating experience, they wanted others to share their experiences and advice and felt quite capable of hearing opinions from others without feeling judged or their experiences diminished. My impression was that the concerns about a safe neutral space as mentioned in the ALS document were overly cosseting their feelings and they felt somewhat patronised by that.

Action learning questions

The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education has developed an Action Learning Toolkit that gives a useful guide to the types of questioning that may be useful in action learning sets. We’d highly recommend taking a look at their guidance: LFHE Action Learning Toolkit.

Overall, we discovered a rich quantity of information, guidance and advice from previous Jisc projects and Jisc publications. This provided a foundation from which to formulate an approach to the core issues of the project as well as describing what issues might arise in carrying out a project of this nature. University of Worcester’s Building Capacity project final report

Universities and colleges, as learning organisations, remain guilty of ‘reinventing the wheel’ quite often when it comes to change projects. Effective use of Jisc resources and the learning available from past projects can often take some of the legwork out of investigating suitable options. They are unlikely to provide you with an out-of-the- box solution but they can give you ideas and an indication of likely feasibility as well as highlighting some of the issues that might crop up in your particular context. They can also provide you with a rich source of contacts who might fill specific gaps in your expertise or be able to take on roles such as that of a critical friend to your project. The University of Bradford took a somewhat unusual approach to meeting its strategic objectives relating to a “web enabled campus supported by mobile technology” by undertaking a literature review of recent Jisc projects in the field, shortlisting those that appeared to have resulted in a significant improvement related to one or more of Bradford University’s strategic objectives and then asking senior managers and other stakeholders to vote on which solution appeared to offer the most potential to meet Bradford’s needs. They then undertook a feasibility study on the preferred solution prior to implementation.

By taking the original concept of such a project and implementing it in a way suitable for the Bradford environment it was deemed more likely to result in the achievement of the desired goals due to it being a proven solution. University of Bradford’s Building Capacity project final report

An additional benefit from involvement in Jisc innovation programmes or engagement with Jisc resources is access to the associated communities of practice. The University of Plymouth found considerable benefit in this when it conducted a survey relating to students and their use of technology. Through engagement with the Jisc community they were able to arrange for the survey to be conducted across five different universities at the same time with each institution using a common set of questions supplemented by institution specific questions resulting in all of the participating institutions having access to a much broader range of relevant data.

The University of Cumbria had a similar experience when Jisc projects it identified as potentially able to offer interesting lessons for the University in developing its use of social media to support student learning and retention were able to provide critical friends for Cumbria’s own project:

Finally, we must attribute much of our learning as an organisation to excellent contributions from the four project consultants who have very effectively adopted the role of critical friend. Each has brought a unique and enriching perspective which has reinforced the value of both their experiences in guiding us, and of the Jisc projects that they have been involved with in their own institutions that triggered our collaboration.

Jisc Watch

The University of Bradford noted that “One of the things that have become apparent during the course of the project is the value of engagement with Jisc at an individual level.“ and, as a result, the University has implemented ‘Jisc Watch’ encouraging its staff to follow Jisc staff on Twitter, adding Jisc to its RSS feed and tracking new Jisc documents. It also recommended to its IT Services Project Board that future objectives and projects are matched against previous Jisc work, as part of the initial Project Initiation Document to help increase project success by implementing solutions that have already been tested by other FE and HE institutions.

Benefits of learning from Jisc projects

The benefits from the project have been numerous and include cost savings from harvesting existing ideas/processes that would have incurred considerable design and realisation time. Edge Hill University, Building Capacity project final report

… this was not about a simple ‘cut’ and ‘paste’ from the Jisc projects but to use the outputs and outcomes as a catalyst for developing our own ideas fitting for our varied disciplinary contexts.” University of Leeds, Building Capacity project final report The process predominately stimulated ideas, as opposed to offering ready made solutions and artefacts. Edge Hill University’s Building Capacity project final report

The initial stages of the project involved identifying and reviewing relevant Jisc resources on e- Portfolio systems and CPD. Through this review, important and useful guidance about how to pursue the project was discovered which addressed issues of both change management and technical support. University of Worcester, Building Capacity project final report

Existing Jisc material has meant that there was no need to re-invent the wheel, simply make it work for UCLan!” University of Central Lancashire, Transformations project case study

The whole department were given the same awareness sessions but only one became engaged… You have to motivate a lot of people in order to engage one.ILT Co-ordinator, FE College

Change is an incremental process, neither individuals nor organisations adopt a change overnight. Some change process theories describe the stages of a successful change process as consisting of three phases:

Unfreezing: Creating the motivation to change by disconfirmation of the present state, creation of survival anxiety, creating of psychological safety to overcome learning anxiety Moving: Learning new concepts, new meanings, and new standards by imitation of and identification with role models, scanning for solutions and trial-and-error learning Refreezing: Internalising new concepts, meanings, and standards by incorporating into self-concept and identity and into ongoing relationships and groups

We would argue that change in real life is rather more organic than this. Rather than ‘refreezing’ at the end of a project a successful implementation will pave the way for a more change robust culture in which continuous improvement becomes normal. The model may nonetheless have some validity in the case of technological change where decisions taken as part of one project constrain choices in the future.

Innovation research is a field of research which suggests that the propensity of individuals to change and implement new ideas, products or processes differs. Rogers’ (2003) theory on the diffusion of innovations refers to change processes in relation to the individual and his or her decision process regarding the adoption or rejection of an innovation/change. He differentiates five stages in the decision process:

1. knowledge occurs when an individual is exposed to an innovation’s existence and gains an understanding of how it functions. 2. persuasion occurs when an individual forms a favourable or an unfavourable attitude towards the innovation. 3. decision takes place when an individual engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the innovation. 4. implementation occurs when an individual puts a new idea into use. 5. confirmation takes place when an individual seeks reinforcement of an innovation-decision already made, but he or she may reverse this previous decision if exposed to conflicting messages about the innovation.

Conner and Patterson (1982) propose a total of 8 stages (see figure below) for an organisation or a person to go through when becoming committed to a change goal. The authors claim that each stage indicates a critical juncture, in which commitment can be threatened. This is shown in the illustration below. If a stage is completed successfully, advancement to the next stage is possible. If not, the downward arrows indicate the result. Eight stages – Conner and Patterson (1982)

Innovation research (Rogers, 2003) categorises people in terms of their propensity to change, ranging from:

Innovators (venturesome) They are very eager to try new ideas. This interest leads them out of local circle of peer networks and into more cross-functional relationships. Communication patterns and friendships among a clique of innovators are common, even though their distance (functional, geographical, etc.) between the innovators may be considerable. In order to be an innovator, there are several prerequisites. These are control of substantial financial resources, the ability to understand and the ability to apply complex technical knowledge. The innovator must also be able to cope with a higher than average degree of uncertainty. Early adopters (respectable) They are a more integrated part of the local social system than are innovators. They have the greatest degree of opinion leadership in most social systems. Potential adopters look to early adopters for advice and information about the innovation. The early adopter is considered as individual to check with before using a new idea. They are respected by their peers and are the embodiment of successful and discrete use of new ideas. Early majority (deliberate) They adopt new ideas just before the average member of a social system. The early majority interacts frequently with peers, but seldom holds leadership positions. The early majority’s unique position between the very early and the relatively late to adopt makes them an important link in the diffusion process. They provide interconnectedness in the system’s networks. They may deliberate for some time before completely adopting a new idea. Their innovation-decision period is relatively longer then that of the innovators and the early adopter. Late majority (sceptical) They adopt new ideas just after the average member of a social system. They don’t adopt until most others in their social system have done so. They can be persuaded of the utility of new ideas, but the pressure of peers is necessary to motivate adoption. Laggards (traditional) They are the last group to adopt an innovation. They possess almost no opinion leadership. Decisions are often made in terms of what has been done in previous generations and these individuals interact primarily with others who also have relatively traditional values.

These types bear a lot of similarity to those identified by the University of Huddersfield in a large scale study of the adoption of e-marking.

Innovation research has also identified properties of innovations (in this case organisational changes) that are likely to meet with success. These are:

relative advantage, the degree to which it is perceived to be better than the situation currently existing compatibility, the perceived ‘fit’ of the innovation with existing structures, procedures and values complexity, the degree of difficulty involved in learning about and implementing the innovation trialability, the extent to which an innovation can be tried by potential adopters without major investment of time or resources observability, the degree to which outcomes resulting from the adoption of an innovation are visible

In our environment we do of course have a significant pressure group who may drive change:

There is a strong motivational element that can be tapped that comes from the students themselves. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that students who see other groups using the technology when they are taught without it produce a groundswell of concern and envy. Staff members are bluntly asked “Why are we not getting to use the computers when other groups do?”

Educational Technologist, FE College

The students were the biggest driver for change – once exposed to innovative practices, they expected that they would get similar ‘treatment’ from every lecturer. This spurred colleagues into action more than anything else. People who were thought of as barriers for the change in the beginning were eager to be trained and embrace ‘the new’, as the change wasn’t anymore perceived as the whim of a VC or a DVC, but was what students really needed and wanted. It all made sense. We saw the opinion changing influence that students as stakeholders of the teaching profession have.

From Changing Teaching and Learning styles Case Study

The Tipping Point

Rogers (2003) states that the adoption of an innovation/change will exhibit a normal distribution on a time graph but a concept of which is being increasingly used is that of the ‘Tipping Point’ (Gladwell 2000). The Tipping Point is similar to the idea of the ‘critical mass’ which originated in physics and is defined as the amount of radioactive material necessary to produce a nuclear reaction. The ‘critical mass’ in innovation research indicates the point at which enough individuals in a system have adopted an innovation so that the innovation’s further rate of adoption becomes self-sustaining (Anghern 2005). This is especially relevant for interactive communications technology where a critical mass of individuals must adopt the technology before the average individual can benefit from the system.

A number of younger staff were actually quite keen to change, so we directly dealt with these individuals by appointing a number of people, whom we called change agents, in every department, across the university.From Changing Teaching and Learning styles Case Study Any change will have its proponents and its opponents. Preparation for change includes not only generating enthusiasm for the change process and working with the early adopters and converts, but being prepared to challenge and win-over the sceptics.

Undertaking a Force Field analysis is one way of analysing the driving and restraining forces for change.

Change can be seen by some people as devaluing their previous experience which may explain why younger people, who have invested less time and effort in learning the old ways find it easier to adapt to the new.

Thinking about the personal perspectives on change and preparing responses to the issues that might arise will help you to address concerns. In the initial stages of the development of proposals it can be useful to test your ideas with staff who are prepared to be more sceptical and act as a devil’s advocate. This can help prepare for battles to come. To do so staff will need a safe forum in which to voice their concerns and work on the change.

Change is generally met with enthusiasm when:

we propose the change we are involved in the design of the change we feel that our opinion/views are heard, and contribute to the new reality we benefit from the change the organisation benefits from the change the students benefit from the change the wider community benefits from the change we dislike the present status quo we are confident about our competence in the new context we trust/respect/like the person/group, proposing the change we can see the big picture and how the change contributes to it we are given support and time to adjust to the changes we are not expected to change too many things at the same time change is spaced we understand the reasons for the change we believe the change is important we believe the change is necessary

Change in education is met with confrontation when:

we are not involved in the change design we feel that our opinion/views are not considered we do not see benefits for ourselves, arising from the change we do not feel the University would benefit from the change we do not feel the students would benefit from the change we do not feel the wider community would benefit from the change we like the present status quo We lack confidence about our competence in the new context we do not trust/do not respect/do not like the person/group, proposing the change we can not see the big picture and how the change would contribute to it we are not given support and time to adjust to the changes we are expected to change too many things at the same time change is not carried through properly we do not understand the reasons for the change there is no clarity about change aims and objectives we believe other things need changing more urgently we believe the time is not right for this particular change the degree of change is too great to be readily assimilated

Most major change processes elicit some or all of the following reactions:

Initial disbelief – it won’t happen! Anger – it won’t happen if I can help it! Acceptance – if it’s going to happen then I might as well do it! Accommodating new reality in – that works quite well and I wouldn’t want to change it.

Dealing with resistance often requires challenging and changing colleagues’ perceptions and beliefs – such changes are not easy to effect and the effort put in working through the barriers must be commensurate to the outcomes. However, large-scale change, especially cultural change, is likely to be more difficult to manage if the barriers are not addressed.

When estimated resistance is going to take a long time to deal with there are a number of strategies that can be adopted:

Work with the early adopters and then move onto the main group of staff. Recognise that there will always be some staff who find difficulty in making the change and marginalise them by ensuring the majority are on board. Confront the sceptics head on. Return to the drawing board, are there other ways in which the outcomes can be achieved?

We have looked generally at resistance to change and, whilst it often appears that there are particular issues when the change involves implementation of new technology, in fact the underlying issues are very similar. In the section on adoption of change we outline a useful model for the stages people go through in deciding whether or not to adopt a particular innovation and those stages remain valid whether or not the ‘innovation’ is technology related. There are two key points to this section:

recognise a change project for what it is and don’t be fooled by the red herring of technology. If the project needs somebody with change management experience, make sure you bring in those skills and don’t be tempted to saddle a technical specialist with these responsibilities familiarise yourself with the discourse of resistance around the implementation of new technologies. You will no doubt hear it all for yourselves but forewarned is forearmed so read on…

It is tempting to ask “Who are likely to be the resisters?” but, whilst relatively small scale research for particular projects can often identify user related characteristics such as age, gender etc as factors affecting people’s confidence in using technology, it is overly simplistic to look for single factors such as this that characterise opponents of a ‘new system’. A range of other backgrounds, values and beliefs will inevitably come into play.

Similarly, whilst the characteristics of the technology itself are important (poorly designed systems and those with obvious bugs will induce resentment) more interesting are situations where a particular technology is loved by some and hated by others. Markus (1983) identifies common circumstances in which user and system characteristics interrelate to impact on resistance to the introduction of MIS systems: Systems are resisted on the basis that they centralise control over data within organisations that otherwise exemplify decentralised structures Systems alter the power balance within organisations such that it is resisted by those who lose power Resistance arises from the interaction between the technical design of a system and the environmental or social circumstances in which it is used

Tales of resistance

The University of Strathclyde noticed the above factors at play when it introduced a new system for curriculum management replacing a varied set of devolved, paper-based processes. The general impression of academic staff was that the system facilitated greater transparency of process which was actually empowering to academics and supported the sharing of knowledge and good practice. A significant minority however perceived that the system benefited administrators at the expense of academic freedom. An evaluator’s report noted:

This view appears to be corroborated by anecdotal observations of academic quality processes at a number of faculties whereby it was not uncommon for incomplete or substandard curriculum designs to be submitted for faculty consideration. Designs often followed no particular template, omitted key information (eg number of student contact hours, resource implications, constructive alignment, etc), and were left for academic quality teams to ‘sanitise’. Due process was also occasionally subverted at the behest of senior academics. The design process under the previous state therefore afforded some academics significant freedom in the curriculum design process, and this freedom no longer exists in the new state. PiP: Principles in Patterns – Evaluation

The conclusion from a number of projects in the sector (particularly in universites eg Strathclyde and Huddersfield) is that taking a very directive approach to the adoption of technology can be counter-productive and that it is better to ease transition by accepting a variety of approaches for a certain period of time. The University of Strathclyde notes:

Emphasis here is on coaxing the ‘late majority’. Forcing such users to abandon familiar technologies can be counterproductive and the use of bridging options are often advocated whereby some choice in system adoption is provided, at least temporarily.

Although they go on to say:

Such an approach carries several inherent risks, not least the potential for academics to subvert the process.

This section is taken from the work of the Open University’s OULDI project which researched staff attitudes to adopting new tools to support curriculum design. They identified and analysed five common objections:

1 “I haven’t enough time.”

There may be a number of reasons that staff perceive themselves to have ‘not enough’ time. Firstly, they perceive themselves to be less skilled or, compared to someone else, relatively inexperienced or inefficient in using the tool or approach. The use of ‘I’ may be important here; ie “I haven’t the skills or knowledge to do this in the time available” rather than ”there isn’t time for someone with sufficient skills or knowledge to do this.” Furthermore, the estimate of the time an individual requires may include the time needed to first learn the new skills or knowledge. This extends the reason not to engage but continues to pin the reason for resistance against an external factor (limited time) rather than to an individual specific factor (less skilled).

Even depersonalising the claim to “there isn’t enough time” is a statement of fact rather than an overwhelming reason to disengage. There are still possible options available eg

1. stop doing something else less important and do the proposed change instead 2. do other stuff more efficiently so as to find time 3. expend more time by adding the change to existing practice

Invariably, the discourse of resistance favours the latter. This is perhaps because the first option requires an appraisal of the current process and a determination of the relative value of the new tool or approach in question – compared to other tasks what priority should the change be given?

2 “It doesn’t help me.”

Objections presented in terms of low value to the individual concerned are quite hard to argue against because they relate so much to individual personal experience. The Open University notes however that there is a discernible strand in this particular discourse of resistance that presents arguments about value that appear ill thought through, not properly articulated, or focus on relatively superficial issues and cites examples of long arguments about semantics used within design tools. They also note that, in contrast, more positive discourses associated with value tend to refer more to experiences gained through extended and applied use of the tool or approach, the benefits to others (such as colleagues or the institution) and the benefit to students.

3 “Prove to me this works.”or “Where is the evidence?”

On the face of it these are fair and reasonable requests. However, the link between demonstrable evidence of impact and convincing someone to use a tool or approach is not straightforward. Some academics are happy to pilot a new teaching idea with almost no evidence beyond their own ‘hunch’ whereas others continue to argue against practices (especially with regard to assessment and feedback) that are recognised sector-wide as good practice.

The Open University suggests that such anomalies in behaviour relate to the desire of the change adopter to understand the risks involved. Using valuable time to trial a new tool or approach involves risk and, conversely, doing nothing also involves a risk. Therefore, individuals seek reassurance that the risk is worthwhile and, presumably, the greater the perceived risk the greater the demand for evidence to ‘prove’ it will work and the greater the trust the individual or team must have in that reassurance. This may also be compounded by the fear that a new approach will reveal deficiencies in existing practice or result in loss of autonomy.

There are many examples where those resisting change continue to ask for evermore evidence or guarantees. The University of Huddersfield has undertaken considerable research into electronic assessment management (EAM) and concludes that the risk aversion that leads institutions to procrastinate and demand evermore and better evidence is resulting in them muddling along with costly and sub-optimal solutions.

Senior managers in HEIs are keen to adopt new strategies for managing assessment, but many feel reluctant to do so because of the perceived risks involved. Key amongst these risks is the concern that implementing EAM strategies will invite strong resistance from academic staff and that a system which is not reliable and/or robust will generate distrust and dissatisfaction amongst students. Lesser amongst the risks, but which are nevertheless significant, are training, procurement and data management issues; these all bring with them potentially significant costs as well as risk. In terms of training, concerns that students will struggle with electronic submission systems remain high. So, while institutions are keen to adopt EAM strategies as quickly as they can, many are also feeling hesitant to do so. This leaves institutions running the risk of finding themselves constantly stalling or, alternatively, developing radically over-engineered solutions which are more cumbersome, costly and inflexible than they need to be. University of Huddersfield, EBEAM project final report

4 “I don’t really need to use it.”

This approach questions on what basis a problem, and hence a need, has been identified. The fact that it may even be a contractual requirement or part of the institutional process will not guarantee effective or productive use. Demonstrating need can often be difficult due to the fact that many of the current measures of quality have emerged to measure current practices not new practices. It is therefore difficult to argue, for example, for greater collaboration across module production teams if no one has data to show this is an issue or if management has not recognised it as such. The managing course information infoKit has some interesting examples of where analysing data about the curriculum and about assessment practice has led to large-scale change.

5 Initiative fatigue

The broader organisational and further and higher education context is important. Many change projects describe staff within their organisation as suffering from initiative fatigue. The technology you are trying to implement may be just one of many changes taking place internally and externally. The perception that new tools or approaches represent a generalised shift to top-down control of teaching and learning can also distort how staff understand and respond to the case for adopting new tools and working practices.

Probably the single technology innovation that has most divided the academic community are tools that permit online marking of student assignments. Views can be extremely polarised and highly personal. For example:

those resisting the change may cite age as a relevant factor and state that on-screen marking causes them eye strain advocates, on the other hand, may state (again citing their age as relevant) that not having to carry heavy piles of essays is a significant benefit as is the ability to make use of the accessibility functions available on screen such as being able to adjust font size and colour for ease of reading

A large scale study of attitudes to e-marking was carried out by the University of Huddersfield and the material in this section is drawn from the report on the eBEAM project published in 2013. The study identified that academic staff attitudes are split into three main groups:

those who are innovators or early adopters and have migrated enthusiastically to e-marking those who have approached it more cautiously those who have done so reluctantly or have tried it and then moved back to paper marking

The University states that: “Our experience has proven that a particularly effective way of managing the transition to e-marking is to allow each of these groups to continue working (ie to continue to undertake their marking) is the way that they feel most comfortable and the consequence is that the movement from paper to e-marking happens organically. This is a time-consuming strategy (in that it will probably take several academic years to achieve) but it is a process that will generate the least disgruntlement and hostility.”

The aim is to achieve ‘critical mass’ whereby e-marking becomes established as the ‘norm’ and those who are reluctant to mark electronically become the exceptions rather than the rule. To achieve this critical mass, the bulk of academic staff (ie those who are neither early adopters or especially resistant or reluctant) need to find it easier and more rewarding to move onto electronic marking than to stay in a paper-based system. This middle group is, therefore, the most strategically important although it is important to build a strategy and a system which provides each group with the support they need.

They note however that such an organic strategy requires concomitant pressure provided by strategic policy decisions. This pressure comes in the form of change agency from early adopters, from systems that are designed to reward academic staff who adopt e-marking (eg by lightening their administration load) and from student demand. By offering rewards and applying pressure in a consistent way, moving away from paper-based marking and into e-marking makes the most sense to as many academics as possible.

Because the attitudes of these three groups to e-marking are so different, implementation strategies need to be sensitive to all of them and it is worth looking at the experiences of those in each group in more detail.

Early adopters

The early adopters tend to have chosen to use e-marking themselves or have been relieved when it has been required of them. This group of staff wanted to like e-marking and expected to do so when they adopted it. This group has remained happy with e-marking and reports a wide range of benefits, some of which were unanticipated. For the most part they report needing little if any training or support, having found the technology and interface to be both intuitive and pleasant to use. This group tends to prefer working with electronic rather than with paper-based systems. They identify as ‘tech-savvy’ and are happy (even proud) to admit that they are not good with paper. They also tend to be very resilient, particularly to outages and to absorbing aspects of the new system that they find less than ideal. They tend to seek or readily accept ‘work-arounds’ to solve the problems or limitations they encounter.

These colleagues are the ones leading the way with e-marking and are already using electronic marking systems (very often of their own devising) in institutions around the world often despite the institutional policies and strategies that are in place. From an institutional and operational point of view, while this group are going to be the least ‘difficult’ in terms of convincing them into e-marking, it is vital that any institutional policy does not neglect them or their needs. They should experience rewards in the form of lightening of administrative workload associated with assessment, the benefits of economy of scale that comes with automation and batch handling (eg for marks entry) and opportunities to experience their work being praised and appreciated by both the institution and its students. The message here is clear: for e-marking to work effectively and for its adoption to be smooth the administrative conditions must be designed to accommodate and reward it prior to its adoption.

Healthy sceptics

The second group of academic staff have been more reluctant and less enthusiastic than the early adopters. They have approached e-marking with a healthy dose of scepticism in that they had no pre-established expectations of liking it or disliking it. The University of Huddersfield evaluation found that this group were the most objective of the three and evaluated their experiences without any bias in favour of or against electronic marking systems per se. This is probably best exemplified by the fact that even if they had anticipated problems with e-marking and these had not been realised, they were happy to say so. This group are characterised by not being prepared to tolerate interfaces which felt unnecessarily difficult or cumbersome to use. They have been persuaded to convert to e-marking either because of the benefits experiences by their colleagues, or because of other demonstrable benefits, such as the promise of a lightening of their assessment administration burden, or by student demand.

From an institutional and operational point of view, it is especially important that the move onto e-marking is comfortable and happy for this group of staff; their doing so offers the all-important critical mass that allows it to become normative. For this group to make the move, there are three important factors that need to be in place:

1. it is important that they receive reassurance from colleagues who have already adopted the technology. For this, clear lines of communication need to be established between the early adopters and this group such that the early adopters can function as ‘change agents’. Having the early adopters support and train this group (rather than technology support staff) so that they can communicate the benefits directly and first hand is an ideal way of achieving this. 2. the system must be set up in such a way that there are demonstrable and tangible benefits to staff when they move onto it. 3. it is important that they clearly hear the student perceptions of electronic marking so that they can get a clear message that moving on to e-marking will improve their students’ learning experiences. The simple act of forcing this group of staff to mark their work electronically can be an effective strategy but only if they are junior to, or less powerful than, those requiring them to make the move. This strategy is less likely to be effective for staff who have autonomy over their own work and marking practices.

Reluctant staff

Those staff who were reluctant users of the technology or who had abandoned the use of it report that the medium of online marking fundamentally alters the marking experience, compelling them to relinquish their own hard-won strategies for dealing with this often challenging and burdensome aspect of their role. This was described by them as a frustrating and even painful experience. There is, however, evidence that at least part of their reluctance stems from a resistance to change in general and to giving up the paper-based systems with which they are familiar and comfortable in particular. Their reluctance tends to be articulated in discourses that are suspicious of new technologies (such as screen-reading, typed feedback and audio recorded comments) while valorising older technologies (such as paper, handwriting and face to face communication). It is likely that the self-identification of these staff members is, at least in part, wrapped up in ‘old school’ and traditional values. For them, a move to something as radical as online marking can even feel like a betrayal of these values.

It is fair to say that these staff do not want to like online marking. They tend to seek out and emphasise those aspects they did not like or those which did not fit with their established workflow and/or their pedagogical approach to marking. These staff tend to make assumptions about the older technologies feeling more personal, more authentic and therefore more engaging than the new technologies even though evidence shows that only a small minority of students share this opinion.

For successful adoption by this group of staff, patience is required. A policy of simply forcing all academics to mark electronically is going to be least popular and therefore least successful with this group. From a change management perspective, it is important to allow this group to retain a sense of agency and autonomy over their work and their decisions while at the same time challenging their assumptions (where there is little or no actual evidence to support them) and making it clear that their current way of working will mean that they will be required to continue undertaking administrative tasks that their colleagues who do adopt e-marking will not. It will also need to be made clear to them that their way of working will eventually not be considered normative or even acceptable.

Sensitive and more extensive, in-depth support and training is needed to smooth the transition for these colleagues. It is particularly important to help them perceive the attendant benefits that their colleagues have been able to independently identify. It is also likely that self-paced, on-demand support and training, particularly that which is designed to ameliorate the negative effects of simply not knowing where to click, is going to be vital to their movement to e-marking. It is also important to allow them to justify their decision to move to e-marking in ways that make sense to them and help them maintain their sense of identity and agency. A good example is the sense of embarrassment that many of these colleagues articulated because they had printed student work to read it rather than reading it on screen. This was often described as an ‘admission’ and the causes for it were explained as being a result of their age or previous experience. This may indeed be a way of displacing the true cause of their reluctance given that so many colleagues who are the same age and have the same previous experience did not report sharing that preference. However, allowing these staff the licence to continue to articulate, and therefore displace, the real causes for their reluctance in this way is probably strategically useful.

The notion of Transition Management as being a separate from, but related to, change management is largely the work of Bridges (1998). Transition is different from change and it is very often the transition that people resist – not the change itself. The transition needs to be understood and managed especially where the change is radical. Staff will be at different stages along the change curve and the emotional response to change needs to be recognised. Leaders of change should also consider their own transition.

Change involves a shift in the external situation it is about the events or circumstances which impact on and affect the organisation. For example, the new leader, changes in government policy, technology, student expectations, merger etc. Thus, change is typically outcome or results focused, in that organisational change is usually a solution to someone’s perception of a problem or an opportunity.

Transition is an internal, three-phase psychological re-orientation that people go through as they come to terms with a change. It is a process, an inner experience not necessarily focused on outcome or results. It is timed differently from the external changes, and has less definition than the changes it accompanies.

It’s often transition not change that people resist. They resist giving up their sense of who they are, their identity as it is expressed in their current work. They resist the chaos and uncertainty of the neutral zone – the in-between state. They resist the risky business of a new beginning – doing and being what they have never done and been before. In order to effect change it is important to help people through the transition. Transitions associated with major upheavals might include major changes to roles and responsibilities, mergers of departments, schools or areas and, ultimately, loss of jobs.

There are three phases of the transition process:

Endings Neutral Zone New Beginnings

The body language has changed dramatically. People are now much keener to get involved. Once you get people engaged, you can then start to move along through the transition.From Effects of Business Development and Knowledge Transfer on institutional culture Case Study

You have to end before you begin

Frequently people talk about what’s about to begin and there is no mention of what has to end. No one can develop a new identity or a new purpose until he or she has let go of the old one. It is best to deal with endings realistically and help people gain closure on the past. They will move on more readily and take advantage of what the future has to offer if you do.

Between the ending and the new beginning, there is a hiatus

In between letting go of the old way and taking hold of the new, there is a difficult journey through the wilderness or ‘a time in between the trapezes’. This is a dangerous time when systems don’t work well and people lose heart easily. People need to know that it is usual to go through a chaotic interim between letting go and taking hold again and that it’s normal to be discouraged and confused by the experience. Build in temporary sources of support and ways that people can feel in control by being involved in decisions that affect them.

The hiatus can be a creative time

The same forces that make the in-between time difficult, mean that the normal resistances to new ideas and new behaviours don’t work well either. For that reason, the interim is a potentially creative time, when new things can be introduced more quickly and easily than usual. This can be a time to step back and take stock, to try new things and a time to view every problem as an opportunity to abandon outmoded ways and create more adaptive and effective ones.

Transition is developmental

What ends is often not just a particular situation but a whole chapter and stage of development in the organisation’s life cycle. Behind the scenes, a new organisation is taking shape. This is easier to see in retrospect, but it’s worth remembering at the time that there is a purpose to all the distress and disturbance. Assist people to see that the old way was fine for its’ time, but a new chapter is needed for a new day. It is also very important for managers to publicly identify, protect and carry forward the parts of the past that are valuable and still viable. Transition is also the source of renewal

The leap from one stage of development to another, like comparable leaps in nature, releases energy. That is why organisations so often come out of a painful crisis with new energy and a new focus. Renewal for individuals or groups comes from going through transition successfully, not in time away from the situation. Emphasise the need to re-prioritise as a way of unloading irrelevant policies and procedures. Discontinuing the old ways can be a release, especially if it is paired with an effort to clarify and celebrate the new mission, strategies and the new identity that the organisation is growing into.

People go through transition at different speeds and in different ways

People get strung out along the path of transition like runners in a marathon. The leaders who designed the change are often far out ahead. They had a head start; they feel more in control of their fate and probably aren’t as personally affected as many of the rank and file. Some people are more resilient during change. Leaders understand these things and communicate in terms that make sense from where people presently are, not just where the leaders are.

Most organisations are running a transition deficit

Many organisations don’t give people a chance to complete the transition cycle. They think that they are saving time by hurrying people, but actually all they are doing is leaving people with still more unfinished business to carry along with them. Sooner or later the load will get too heavy, and some apparently small change will send the whole system into transition bankruptcy. To keep that from happening, slow down. Listen more and talk less. Investigate what old hurts and resentments may be getting in the way of people dealing directly with this transition. Do whatever you can to address them and lay them to rest. Build your case that this time will be different – and make sure it is!

The Timings of New Beginnings

Like any organic process, beginnings cannot be made to happen by a word or act. They happen when the timing of the transition process allows them to happen, just as flowers and fruit appear on a schedule that is natural and not subject to anyone’s will. That is why it is so important to understand the transition process and where people are in it.

Only when you get into people’s shoes and feel what they are feeling can you help them to manage their transition. More beginnings abort because they were not preceded by well-managed endings and neutral zones than for any other reason.

But if beginnings cannot be forced according to one’s personal wishes, they can be encouraged, supported and reinforced. You cannot turn the key or flip the switch, but you can cultivate the ground and provide the nourishment. What you can do falls under four headings:

You can explain the basic purpose behind the outcome you seek. People have to understand the logic of it before they turn their minds to work on it. You can put a picture of how the outcome will look and feel. People need to experience it imaginatively before they can give their hearts to it. You can lay out a step-by-step plan for phasing in the outcome. People need a clear idea of how they can get where they need to go. You can give each person a part to play in both the plan and the outcome itself. People need a tangible way to contribute and participate.

Success breeds success – disseminate and adapt models for your own purpose and needs. From Effects of Business Development and Knowledge Transfer on institutional culture Case Study

Many of the above reactions arise from uncertainty about how the change will impact individuals and teams. The following check lists give some pointers as to how you might identify the major uncertainties that worry people and start to address them. We suggest that you address the individual fears as the first priority. Even where people are severely affected and negotiation is impossible you should treat the fears in a fair manner and with a sense of urgency.

Individual fears

Nagging FEAR Type Question Response Priority Coping strategy

Will I have a job Clarify if this is the case High Competent HR team, after the changes? devoting time to the Be prepared to answer tough Immediate affected from the questions response changes required Assistance with finding new job

Counselling

Stress management

Job loss Union support

Will I personally Clarify if this is the case Medium to Communications have to change high strategy and clarity in too many things? Emphasise usefulness of promoting changes changes and benefits in the long What is run expected of Realistic expectations each of amount of change at member of any one time Degree of staff? change Provide training

Will there be Clarify if this is a permanent or Medium to Knowledgeable and change to my temporary measure, whether this high supportive HR team contract/salary? comes as an incentive for the changes to be introduced Contract clarity needs to be Salary and observed at contract all times

Will I lose my Clarify Medium to Be aware of perks and parking high how staff view them space/company Justify actions, be prepared to car etc? answer tough questions Look for alternatives

Will there be Perks and changes to my the spoil pension/holiday factor entitlement Nagging FEAR Type Question Response Priority Coping strategy

Will I be gaining or Clarify immediately High Be honest losing status as a result of the Be prepared to answer tough Provide personal changes? questions recognition and supportIdentify ways in Personal which status can be Status enhanced

Will I have to Clarify at local level: if this is a Medium to Will the new change desks/ permanent or temporary high environment be better – offices/ measure if so in what ways? buildings/sites? Are there any incentives for Are there long-term relocation? advantages

Physical Any efficiencies to be achieved? Don’t promise what you environment can’t deliver

Will I get a new Clarify at local level if Low to Deal with uncertainty computer, or will I ‘technology’ is going to be medium inherit someone affected by the changes Provide training and else’s old mentoring where machine? necessary

Will I have a direct line?

Will I be able to cope with the new Technology technology?

Would the change Clarify possibilities for career Medium Talk 1:1 about longer enhance my opportunities term possibilities and opportunities? what needs to be achieved to get there How would the Career changes affect my development career?

What’s in it for Clarify issues High Talk to those most me? affected and hear their Resolve issues or look for concerns Push or pull? alternative solutions Overall See Transition Personal Management

Team fears

FEAR Type Nagging Question Response Priority Coping Strategy

Are we clear what we Be clear about the new High This requires more than are trying to achieve? purpose just communication – but for staff to work with and Purpose of the explore the proposed new team reality FEAR Type Nagging Question Response Priority Coping Strategy

Will we be working to Clarify if this is the case; High Immediate, uniform different standards? justify changes response requiredEnsure standards and procedures are clear

Change to Communication strategy, standards, backing the business procedures case for change

Will we get on If values and beliefs are High Celebration of success, together? affected at individual level, and incentives for the morale and team spirit might change need to be be affected too provided

Clarification and Away days or similar Morale and team reassurance is needed events thinking about the spirit new future

Will we need to Clarification and training High Address team needs acquire new skills as needs analysis to be a result of introducing conducted Team training can help Training and the changes? cement new teams and development identify tensions

Will we know what’s Identify how issues will be Medium Provide clear going on? communicated amongst communication structures team Recognise importance of informal as well as formal communication channels Communications within the team Discuss dissemination and with others plan

It can be a bit scary… I think managers should come clean on it and say it will be a bit scary and if they don’t and say ‘Oh no it will be fine’ there will be people who will be sitting there and thinking ‘Oh no they are saying it should be fine and I am scared to death so there must be something wrong with me’ and there will be managers who are scared too.Head of Support Department, Pre ’92 University.

In a transition there are emotional responses to the losses that people experience because of the changes. This is normal but often these responses are taken by others as signs that the change is being resisted. Those leading change need to recognise these emotions in others and themselves, and develop ways to manage their own emotions and assist others to manage theirs. Unmanaged, these responses may undermine the changes and have personal consequences.

This process has been likened, psychologically, to the grieving process.

Everyone deals with such major changes in their own way but we can identify a number of stages that staff might go through.

Each of the stages in the process needs to be recognised and responded to accordingly. For example, it’s no good expecting grudging acceptance when staff are still in shock. You are more likely to get anger and no argument, no matter how reasonable to you, is likely to win staff around.

For those, managing the change, the challenge is to get staff through from shock to grudging acceptance in as fast a time as possible whilst minimising stress and limiting the effect on other areas of the organisation. Shock and denial Distrust Anger and guilt Depression, anxiety and stress Regret Acceptance

I couldn’t believe it! We had agreed to work towards building up student numbers in the department at a previous consultation meeting. The final decision to close us down came out of the blue. I still don’t understand the criteria for the decision.

No matter how well impending decisions have been trailed – once they become known there is a period of shock. People refuse to believe them at first – all large organisations abound with rumours that never come to fruition.

The shock stage is usually short-lived. Actions to take include:

Communicate the broad headline issues, the reasons for change and the actions that will happen Don’t expect people to make decisions or take actions people will not be interested about the future as much as the past Be available and prepared to listen Think about a strategy to help staff through the remaining stages of the process

There were other departments that weren’t recruiting well but it was decided that ours should be the one to go. The data that was at the heart of the decision wasn’t trusted by many academics throughout the institution.

After the shock employees may feel as though ‘the rug has been pulled out from under them’. The trust level within the organisation drops, and people who feel betrayed develop a generally suspicious, ‘save-your-own-skin’ attitude. Some organisations have reported suspicion among peers and a withholding of information for fear of advancing somebody else’s interests. Actions here include:

Communicate again the reasons and who is likely to be involved Clarify and make clear the timescales for the decision-making process – and ensure these are kept to Be honest about the future Don’t develop a blame culture – deal with issues not people Be available – but don’t expect a rush of people to talk to you

People were very angry. The Unions were involved and the case went to tribunal which the institution lost. Three years on, some people are still angry about how it was handled.

Change creates winners (those who benefit from the change) and losers (those who don’t). The winners can often feel guilty and the messengers of the change may also feel guilty. Guilty people usually express their feelings indirectly and may feel uncomfortable around the losers. They may overcompensate (‘don’t blame me, I didn’t plan this change’) or they may even blame and/or patronize the losers for not being able to cope with the change well. This can also affect communication – those not involved don’t know what to say to those that are, leading to an even greater sense of alienation by those most affected.

Those who don’t benefit from the change or those whose friends/colleagues don’t benefit can feel resentment, especially towards the hierarchy. They can become angry, blame the organisation and can look for ways to payback (working slowly, leaving work undone, leaking documents, making mistakes or organising opposition).

At this stage:

Provide opportunities to let off steam Expect open anger from some staff and acknowledge it as a natural reaction Respond with empathy to people’s sense of loss Start to explain the need for change in more detail but don’t expect to be listened to straight away Be careful about the wording of even confidential documents – they may become public Don’t expect engagement in new processes or decision-making at this stage

The response to the decision was that people started looking for other jobs and in the middle of the year some staff left which put the rest of us in a difficult position. This was very de-motivating and very stressful.

Some people get anxious from the first rumour of change and when the changes are complete they then worry about the next set of changes. Nervousness, working extra time and taking on extra work to ‘please the boss’ can be examples of how some employees respond to change.

If I get more paperwork out, start the day earlier and stay later, come in on weekends, maybe I’ll get to stay or keep my staff or this office.

Anxiety can be a stimulus initially but can eventually lead to a decline in focus on tasks and reduce motivation, energy and adaptability. Stress and its negative effects usually accompany this behaviour. It is instructive to note that absenteeism, medical claims, stress related claims all increase at times of significant organisational change (although there may be a few months lag time).

Living with the anxiety of the unknown associated with a change can create fears that taking risks and setting work goals too high or being too creative may result in displeasing the boss.

Goals are set low, creative approaches to problem solving are scarce, and no one wants to take any chances of looking bad.

Some people focus on ‘How does this affect me? What will happen to me?’ Transitions focus people back on themselves, which can undermine teamwork and increase competition for positions as well as undermine customer service. It is hard to take care of others when you are preoccupied with your own survival. Self- absorption can also undermine loyalty and commitment to the organisation.

It’s important to try to move through this stage as quickly as possible:

Accept some temporary lack of motivation Talk to staff Reinforce the reasons for change and stress that the decision is not necessarily a reflection on the abilities of those involved. Rebuild confidence and self-esteem Recognise that this may not be the best time for creativity Provide counselling if necessary

I felt that I had been loyal to the institution and expected some loyalty in return. I felt isolated from the institution, not informed and not valued. I really feel that it could have been handled better. The worst aspect was the uncertainty.

This is a more positive stage. Staff have come to terms with the change and its personal affects. In the mind, the past always represents a better time and a regret for its passing is natural. The challenge is to ensure that staff don’t stay in the past and revert to old ways but engage actively in the new reality.

Start communicating the future and set out the decisions to be taken Discuss new roles Set short-term goals that are achievable Be positive but realistic At this stage it can be useful to have a wake for the old ways – celebrating what was achieved and drawing a line under the past

I always acted in the best interests of my students. This was difficult at first but I have now become accustomed to my new role and new opportunities have opened up.

This stage is assisted by moving from short-term to long-term vision and building and embedding the new reality.

Don’t dwell on the past. This is the time to start enthusing about the future.

Celebrate new successes Make sure everyone is clear about new roles Don’t expect a radical change overnight – major wounds take a while to heal Convert complaints to action Promote personal responsibility and accountability Delegate as much as possible where appropriate Model new behaviours Reduce the number of meetings relating specifically to change Document any new procedures Revise Job Descriptions and Performance Objectives

The three stages of transition are shown in a Transition Curve and whilst this curve is over simplified, it is a useful tool for understanding the sorts of issues people might be facing during a change. Three phases of transition

When managing change it’s important to recognise that transition is an individual reaction. The role of managers is to help others through to new beginnings whilst maintaining the level of activity or service. Here are some points to bear in mind when assessing where people are on the transition curve.

Some people repeat sections of the curve to best handle transition (there’s no right or wrong sequence). People will exhibit different emotions depending upon the nature and number of changes occurring to them at the same time and their ‘emotional intelligence’. This is normal. Realising where you and the people around you are on the curve will help you initiate appropriate actions and respond effectively. Teams may travel the curve together but individuals will arrive at ‘beginnings’ at their own personal rate. It’s OK to be slow so long as you’re moving and not stuck somewhere. It’s OK to be slow so long as you’re planning on arriving sometime. It’s OK to be fast so long as you’re tolerant and supportive of slower travellers. It’s OK to be fast so long as you honestly acknowledge your own ‘endings’. Checklists

Checklist of actions to consider in the endings zone, neutral zone and new beginnings zone.

Transition curve checklists – change management

Understanding Endings

In the ‘Endings’ stage, staff may want to deny the existence of the initiative and other related change events. Their denial can move them to fear and uncertainty about the future. This diminishes their level of activity and readiness to deal with the accelerating pace of change as the process starts to impact on the organisation.

Staff may acutely feel the loss of the familiarity and security they felt in the organisation before this and other changes occurred. They are likely to be trying to reconcile or accept the fact that things will now be different from the way they have been. They will be trying to accept that they will have to let go of their current sense of identity in the organisation.

Understanding the Neutral Zone

The Neutral Zone or exploration stage is the time between the current and the desired state. Staff will be attempting to orient themselves to the new requirements and behaviours. During this time, they will be confused about the future and will feel overloaded with competing demands.

This can have a negative impact on activities. Because things can be chaotic at this stage, staff may question the status quo or the accepted way of doing things. It is important to note that with encouragement this stage can be a time of exploration that is ripe with creative opportunity.

Understanding New Beginnings

The New Beginnings stage of the Transition Curve is that time when people are ready to commit to the new direction and the change. They feel secure in the new organisation and are ready to function as a significant contributor. This typically occurs as the initiative starts to achieve some of its desired goals.

Once you are into the implementation stage of your project you may find that you start to experience the Knowing- Doing Gap. Quite simply you know what needs to be done, you think you have put the right structures and processes in place but for some reason this hasn’t translated into the right sort of response. Pfeffer & Sutton (2000) identify a number of factors that contribute to this gap:

Pseudo-action Deceptions:

Thinking that knowing is sufficient for success. Thinking that talking (meetings, committees, reports, etc.) is action. Thinking that measuring things is action or contributes to performance. Thinking that making a decision is the same as taking action. Thinking that planning is the same as action.

Clogging the Gap by giving in to the Inhibitions of Fear:

Fearing complexity, lack of clarity about what specifically to do. Fearing risk, mistakes, errors, and imperfection. Fearing competition, focusing on what others are doing and trying to get ahead. Fearing the new, the different, the unpredictable, falling back on precedence (standard operating procedures) and so mindlessly defaulting to what you’ve always done. Taboos that prevent and forbid action:

‘Don’t make a fool of yourself.’ ‘Don’t risk making a mistake, it’s too dangerous.’ ‘Don’t be imperfect.’

Lack of structure for action:

No structure for following up. No structure for rewarding learning from mistakes. No structure for rewarding risk taking.

Personal items predisposing us from taking action:

Not being action oriented in our person, being inactive and passive. Making excuses and letting excuses stop us. Discounting small actions.

Angehrn (2005) has shown how the gap links to the phases of adoption of a change:

The Knowing-Doing Gap – Angehrn (2005)

If you recognise these symptoms in your change project you need to identify the underlying causes. If there seems to be a particular problem area you might try using the 5 Whys tool again to get to the root of the problem.

Templates

View or download our templates from Google Drive™

Reality check

If your change project seems to be stagnating, you experience the Knowing-Doing Gap and you cannot readily identify the main problem area/s then it is time for you to do a Reality Check and apply corrective measures.

This is a 3 stage process:

1. Conduct a reality check 2. Apply corrective measures 3. Monitor the results

At the first stage you will need to review two key things:

the need for change and its relevance to the present climate, if we had achieved the objectives of the change, how would the present be different?

Even if the change now isn’t relevant, there is value in undertaking a review to draw lessons for the future. Sweeping failure under the carpet is a way of encouraging a culture of blame not a culture of change.

Two supplementary questions are also important to help ensure that we don’t make the same mistakes again if we re-invigorate the process:

1. Why didn’t we recognise the signs that the change effort was not on track? 2. Why didn’t we do anything about it?

This analysis can be undertaken individually but is best done as part of an activity which involves the original change team and possibly representatives of the key stakeholders.

This analysis will provide the basis for creating the measures required to restart the process (if it is assessed as both still necessary and feasible).

Actions that can be taken include:

Restructuring the team Rebranding Higher profile involvement from senior management Response to staff concerns Greater investment (time, people, finance) Getting some well-known and respected staff involved Re-set SMART targets Staff development

Reviving a stalled effort will raise questions in people’s minds – ‘we’ve been there, we’ve done that’ an attitude can be hard to work with, and people will need to be reassured that the business case for change is sound, and that their involvement will bring both personal and professional reward, otherwise the effort will be doomed to work against the resistance and the bitter experience of non-achievement.

In this infoKit we offer a multitude of tools that can help at each stage of this change process. For example, if you found that the aims and objectives of the failed change were not clear to stakeholders, you could use Clarimission to synthesise the aims of the change, and to achieve common understanding of the aims.

This is probably your last chance to effect the change – failure again will be almost certain death to the initiative so putting in place effective monitoring process is important to ensure that any early signs of faltering can be picked- up and responded to.

Top management was the face of the change, and it was their responsibility to find a way of going around the barriers of change, to ensure the change effort was resourced, to recognise the need to empower people at the shop floor level and to communicate clearly the vision for the change. Nothing more than to ‘walk the talk’.

From Changing Teaching and Learning styles Case Study

Resource allocation is absolutely crucial – if you really want to effect change you’ve got to be able to direct resources in the way of that change.

From Effects of Business Development and Knowledge Transfer on institutional culture Case Study

Templates

View or download our templates from Google Drive™

Post-project review form Is a change process ever over? How do you know when it is time to give up and move on to other things? In the real world the change often just becomes mainstream, part of the way in which we do things, and other change processes come to dominate our lives. Occasionally we can become fixated by the change and pursue it to the death even when the return on the effort is marginal. This can be the case when people are given specific projects to complete with no clear exit strategy. So the purpose of this section is to explore the notion of completion.

There are a number of signs that a change process has reached the end of its life-time. This doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s been successful – it could mean that it has just lost momentum and will need reviving to effect the desired change.

People stop calling meetings. People stop coming to meetings. The change is now embedded in practice. Other committees and groups have taken it on board as part of their agenda. The original drivers no longer exist or the change process has been overtaken by other events. Senior management support has evaporated. Staff talk positively about it if there is talk of changing it further. The resources have run out. Staff are tired of the rhetoric.

Things to do to aid completion:

Go back to the earlier aims of the change process (if you can find them) and assess the extent to which they have been met. Reinvent the change process (if the desired changes weren’t met but are still valid). Redesign the change process if the change has only been partially met. Check whether any staff appointed to be involved in the change process need to be re-assigned? Check whether other staff affected by the change process now need to have their roles redefined to accommodate changes in working practices.

Write a final report (and circulate widely) to indicate a formal end.

Draw a formal line under the process by a paper to a formal meeting. Let everyone know that the project has come to an end – caution: this can lead to people not taking the change seriously any longer and regressing into old ways.

Evaluation is an essential part of this process whether or not the change achieved the desired outcome. If you set SMART targets in the first place you should be well on your way to being able to say how well you met your aims but don’t expect that it will be easy to identify clear cause and effect relationships. The complexity of measuring institutional transformation is discussed in a Jisc blog post entitled: “Tracks in the snow: finding and making sense of the evidence for institutional transformation”.

You may also find the Post Project Review template helpful.

If you achieved your aims – congratulations!

Q. How many consultants does it take to change a light bulb in HE? A. Only one, but the culture will change it back again as soon as they have left.

The joke on the right sums up the difficulty of actually sustaining a change that has been made and ensuring that it becomes embedded in normal working practice. All too often once a project is over people simply slip back into old ways of doing things.

The University of Strathclyde experienced the reluctance of staff to give up familiar ways of working when it implemented a single source of curriculum information (known as C-CAP) to replace disparate paper-based systems. It experienced what it describes as “unexpected system use behaviour” whereby academics continued to work as they had always done and attach documents to the online system rather than completing the information online.

This preference among academic participants for using MS Word was found not to be just theoretical but was also observed during C-CAP piloting. Piloting of C-CAP revealed unexpected system use behaviour whereby certain sections of course and class proposals were left incomplete; instead, the requested curriculum information was contained in a number of separate MS Word attachments, uploaded at various sections of the proposal. The consequence of such system behaviour for the other approval processes C-CAP supports is catastrophic. Important curriculum information or data cannot be captured in a structured manner, thereby compromising subsequent information extraction or reuse and subverting the underlying process. University of Strathclyde, Principles in Pattern evaluation final report

In examples such as this staff need to be aware of the wider consequences of their activities and to understand how the data may be used in other parts of the organisation as well as for fulfilling their element of the process.

The University of Central Lancashire had a similar experience following a major restructuring exercise in 2008 which removed its faculty layer and devolved greater responsibility to its schools. Faculty services such as marketing, programme administration, finance etc, were moved to existing central services that provided support across all schools. Post restructure however the University noted a growing trend for schools to request the creation of new roles, to undertake duties that should be completed centrally. Some of these requests related to differences between the disciplines e.g. Nursing students require significant placement support, while lab-based students require greater technical supervision but others related to a failure to update business processes following the restructure and a lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities. Central services noted they had to do the same task a variety of ways depending on the schools’ demands and schools themselves admitted that, “some of the variance is down to personal preference”. A change project was instigated to address this and you can find out more in the project case study.

To be properly embedded change must be reflected in our organisational strategy and policy, be operationalised in the form of business processes and be supported by information systems and infrastructure. Change can be subverted or reversed if it is not adequately supported by all of these elements or if the reasoning behind it is not communicated to, and accepted by, stakeholders.

The Jisc Transformations programme funded 58 projects between 2011 and 2013, helping them to effect large- scale organisational change underpinned by ICT. During the programme’s final meeting a group of critical friends got together with the programme support team and discussed a range of characteristics that were typical of successful projects. It’s worth noting that no one project accomplished everything on the list below but tended to excel in a couple of the areas described.

Characteristics of success

Projects were based within an institution that had a relative degree of stability A set of principles, eg honesty, truthfulness, collegiality, reflection, perseverance, and flexibility, was established at an early stage within the project and used to guide the project team Project teams fully understood the institutional context at the start of the project and carried out a baseline of their starting position which could be used to formally evaluate their progress Members of the project had a thorough idea of the lines of communication and power within their institution and how to exploit these Projects had full buy-in from senior management for the project, and (for the most successful projects) an infrastructure within the institution that was set up to facilitate that sort of project Project teams involved stakeholders from the start and throughout Staff from whom the project needed contributions were generally aware of the importance of the project’s goals, if not to them, then at least to management or to external bodies to whom they were accountable (or might need money from) Projects took a realistic, informed and flexible approach to project timescales and outcomes. They adopted different strategies to communicate and collaborate with stakeholders, different steps to achieve goals, or altered goals in response to the changing environment or when previous strategies had not worked Projects were provided with explicit time and attention to change existing processes, with reference to all stakeholders – including the project team Projects were often part of a larger programme of work and could benefit from collaborating with other projects involved with the programme resulting in greater benefit to the institution Risk management was taken seriously – identification, analysis, assessment, response planning and monitoring and control Projects don’t reinvent the wheel – instead they take a look at what others have done and build upon that

In this section we point to some interesting examples of change management within the post-compulsory education sector. They range from examples of organisation-wide transformation to smaller steps that nonetheless represent significant cultural shifts. We have focused on examples that are relatively recent at the time of this update to the infoKit (2013/14) and, especially, on a number of projects that have drawn on and built upon previous Jisc work rather than starting from scratch.

Examples in this section are drawn particularly from the following Jisc programmes:

Institutional approaches to curriculum design (2008-2012)

Curriculum design touches upon almost every aspect of an institution’s business processes from aligning its portfolio of courses to its Mission, through market research and course development to quality assurance and enhancement, resource allocation, timetabling, recruitment and assessment. However the curriculum also encompasses the practice of educational design, based on sound understanding of how people learn and how they develop as capable individuals with different subject specialisms. Curriculum design therefore represents a complex interplay of administrative and pedagogic activities. At times these appear to be parallel worlds with different stakeholders and vocabularies and change is fraught with difficulty. However, as a result of a four-year programme of Jisc activity (2008 to 2012) we now have considerable insight into the relationship between these activities and ways in which they can be better aligned conceptually and better supported by technology. You can find more information about the outcomes on the Jisc Design Studio curriculum pages.

Birmingham City University: radical change to design processes

The University sought to transform the institutional culture and practice of curriculum design via a new approval mechanism that represented a significant departure from previous arrangements. The proposal involved the traditional validation event being replaced by a process during which an Academic Moderator oversees an iterative development phase informed by stakeholder engagement with learners and employers and where reflection on the design is evidenced by multimedia artefacts using a wide range of capture technology. The key finding was that, despite a well thought out and executed programme of stakeholder engagement, shifts in culture and pedagogy were slower than hoped for.

Leeds Metropolitan University: personalised learning

The University attempted to embed a new form of entirely negotiated learning through coaching. This presented change management challenges in many forms: student readiness for new types of learning; business processes that did not fit non-faculty-based learning and changes in University strategy during the life of the project. The project report presents a very honest assessment of the challenges and how they were tackled. The project ultimately achieved considerable success in enhancing learning and teaching practice through moving away from the idea of a personalised curriculum for a particular target market and embedding the practice of coaching in the curriculum in a more widespread way through staff development and working with student ambassadors.

Manchester Metropolitan University: radical change to business processes

The University reviewed processes supporting design and delivery of the curriculum and realised that the number of interdependencies between processes makes it very hard to actually change anything. Their response to this was to change everything! It was decided that an overhaul of the entire undergraduate curriculum and associated processes was required. A re-write of the undergraduate curriculum, linking learning outcomes to employability outcomes, revising the programme approval process, developing an online curriculum database and introducing many new systems for students including a new VLE, personalised timetabling and online assessment submission was accomplished within a year. The project report and evaluation are accompanied by a frank series of stakeholder interviews presented as a publication entitled ‘In the throes of change’.

Open University: tools to support learning design

The University sought to enhance the pedagogic practice of learning design through the piloting and evaluation of a range of tools to enhance practice and make, often tacit, design knowledge explicit. The project evaluation report contains an interesting analysis on the discourse of resistance as regards academic use of the tools.

University of Strathclyde: lean and transparent business processes

This highly decentralised University took a somewhat surprising approach to reviewing its approval processes by adopting a Lean approach. Lean is about adding value for the customer (in this case the student) through the elimination of waste (non-value adding activities). Despite the distinctly non-academic language, the concepts were applied to deliver considerable benefits in terms of improving curriculum processes. The project was an interesting exercise in change management having to deal with many institutional myths and the evaluation includes some in-depth analysis on resistance to use of the new technology. The overall outcome was however that academic staff ultimately felt empowered by greater process transparency.

Assessment and feedback practice

Assessment and feedback lies at the heart of the learning experience, and forms a significant part of both academic and administrative workload but it appears that, right across the UK, students are less satisfied with assessment and feedback than with any other aspect of the higher education experience. A review of the assessment and feedback landscape for Jisc in 2012 revealed that this is an area of practice that is “stubbornly resistant to change”. The following case studies represent a few examples where significant change has been achieved. See also the final summary of the outcomes of the Jisc assessment and feedback programme.

Bath Spa/Winchester Universities: students as partners

The Universities used Student Fellows to work with lecturers and students to develop technology for specific assessment problems, and to evaluate its use. The Student Fellows were co-constructors of the research and development acting as insiders and change agents, developing an understanding of assessment principles, familiarity with technology, and research skills. The success of the initiative was such that it grew from an original team of 17 Student Fellows to a total of 60. Some have even extended their brief to work on other areas of technology innovation. Building on previous experience of working directly with students having furthered the Research Informed Teaching agenda by means of the Winchester Research Apprenticeship Programme (WRAP) the Student Fellow interactions were found to be qualitatively different because as Fellows the students are much more in the driving seat and have considerable credibility and power in the discourse of change.

University of Dundee: centralised tutoring The University set up a centralised online tutoring system, consisting of a blog and email and Twitter accounts, for students on a distance learning programme. All programme communications between academic tutors, administrators, participants and associate staff now take place via these utilities. The system allows tutors to give better support to students as they have full access to all previous communications and, despite initial resistance, it has improved staff satisfaction in a programme team that has seen its FTE halved over the last few years.

University of Huddersfield: electronic assessment management

The University has undertaken a large scale study of all aspects of electronic assessment management (EAM). The report on this work looks at available technologies, business processes and the all important aspect of attitudes of different groups of stakeholders and the change management approaches needed to successfully implement EAM.

St Mary’s University College: audio feedback

The University was seeking to enhance the process of providing feedback and reviewing Jisc work in this area led it to recognise the use of audio feedback as a potential way of transforming the timeliness and quality of feedback. The context of this work is a collegial institution where the centre imposes relatively few requirements upon staff. This means that the pace of change is slow and generally requires much persuasion and nurturing to implement. Throughout the project the emphasis was on encouraging staff who were willing to test and then embed new techniques into their practice to disseminate this to their colleagues.

Digital Literacies

Jisc has found the following definition of digital literacies to be useful:

By digital literacy we mean those capabilities which fit an individual for living, learning and working in a digital society. For example, the use of digital tools to undertake academic research, writing and critical thinking; digital professionalism; the use of specialist digital tools and data sets; communicating ideas effectively in a range of media; producing, sharing and critically evaluating information; collaborating in virtual networks; using digital technologies to support reflection and PDP; managing digital reputation and showcasing achievements.

Developing such literacies can be a major change for both staff and students alike and there are many resources from the Developing digital literacies programme available in the Jisc Design Studio to complement the following examples from the Jisc Transformations programme.

Liverpool John Moores University: staff development

The University sought to improve the capacity of staff to support and engage with new, more online ways of working essential for future success. It recognised however that change initiatives related to specific system implementations often fail and lead to accusations that technology is driving the change. They therefore looked to adopt a generic change programme promoting “Doing Digital” as “the way we do things round here”. The premise behind the approach was that whilst projects deliver the capability to do things differently, there is a need to focus on the change management necessary to ensure that changes in working practices are adopted to take advantage of this new capability: to ensure that things are done differently

University of Westminster: employability

The University set out to explore digital literacy and its relationship to employability: they were also aware that take-up of library induction sessions was a low despite a need for the skills. They found that 87% of students think they are digitally literate and attracting them to training requires nuanced marketing to identify the benefits for them. As a result of better understanding student attitudes the University developed the “Get the Digital Edge” campaign which also includes guidance on relation to social media and employability. University of Wolverhampton: international students

The University set out to improve the transition of international students into a blended learning environment, through development of their digital literacies. There was a perception that there might be a digital divide effectively excluding some students from their learning unless they were enabled to be comfortable and capable in a digital environment. Furthermore, evidence from international student focus groups and interviews, indicated that international students initially struggled with adapting to different pedagogies. They found that BYOD was more prevalent than expected and that the ‘literacy’ issues students struggled with related particularly to digital footprint, netiquette and information authenticity and use. The main outcomes of the project were a change to the priorities that staff identified and new ideas on the way in which they might engage students. The University now prefers to talk about digital fluency rather than literacy.

Student experience

Improving the overall quality of the student experience (hopefully with an impact on NSS scores) is a priority for many learning providers. Working directly with students as active participants in change projects is a new experience for many institutions but there is considerable good practice to draw on and it brings considerable benefits.

There is more on the subject of students as change agents in the Jisc Design Studio.

University of Central Lancashire: student support

The University decided to respond to the changed fee regime by charging maximum fees and focusing on quality of the student experience. It realised however that the diversity of its student support services and lack of formalised information sharing could cause issues eg a bereaved student may require counselling, financial support, academic support, etc. If each individual service was unaware of the student’s dealings with the others, the student may have to repeat themselves several times adding to their distress. The University used an enterprise architecture (EA) approach and drew on work at the University of Derby to undertake a service design review of the process students go through to access support and to develop a new process that reduces the number of touch points the student experiences and enables support services to respond more effectively to their issues.

University of Cumbria: social media for transition and retention

The University investigated use of social media to support learner transition into HE and retention during the first year of study. The context is a dispersed University with many part time and work-based learners and many work placements during the first year. The work had a particular focus on making authentic examples of the study experience, including teaching, learning and assessment activity (TLA), visible to pre-enrolment students to help manage realistic expectations and the University described its ”emergent understanding of a virtual campus constituting participation in TLA activity, rather than an emphasis on digital estate”. The work shows how researching both the theory and practice of previous Jisc projects and understanding their context can make them more useful and the University used previous Jisc project managers as critical friends.

University of Keele: student support

The University was keen to improve student support: the creation of a one-stop-shop for services was however impossible due to the nature of the University estate and there was also a desire to make support available on a 24 x 7 basis. The University drew on experience of creating simulation tools for health study in order to create a virtual Student Advisory Model (SAM). Students receive guidance from an avatar known as SAM (whose characteristics are tailored according to those of the student enquirer). Keele University also used a service design approach which prompted a review of how Keele manages and monitors its interactions with its students, both in terms of recording individual interactions, and the nature of those interactions. The creation of a virtual service was an interesting exercise in change ultimately welcomed by staff who felt it complemented what they already do and freed up time for more value-added activity.

University of Lincoln: greening student accommodation The University wished to support its environmental strategy by designing, evaluating and deploying an effective student-led energy intervention for official student accommodation blocks. Student accommodation often offers utilities as part of a fixed price tenancy agreement. The project is thus particularly interesting in change management terms because it required the development of an in-depth understanding of student perspectives on resource consumption in order to motivate them to participate when there were no specific financial rewards (indeed the converse was probably true ie “it’s free so make the most of it”).

Data management

Poor data quality gets in the way of many learning providers meeting their strategic objectives and it is a particularly thorny problem to tackle. Any attempt to improve business processes or supporting information systems often needs to tackle data quality first thus raising all kinds of issues around culture, trust and ownership making it imperative to employ change management skills as well as data and information management. The managing course information infoKit has a lot of information on this topic as do the following case studies:

University of Bristol: data integration

The University attempted to tackle the problem of achieving full integration of data in its various learning, teaching and research systems primarily in order to provide better quality data to support staff Performance Management processes. The Performance Management project however later scaled down its IT ambitions and focused much more on cultural change prompted by a realisation that IT alone shouldn’t be used to drive cultural change in this sensitive area. This left the IT team to convince senior managers of the need for investment in middleware that would have little immediately visible impact and also of the need for cultural change around data ownership. The case study describes how it went about this by convincing people on the ground through identifying real pain points that they could relate to and by the use of EA to deliver a roadmap and effective governance.

Canterbury Christ Church University: business intelligence

The University was keen to transform its approach to management information and move forward with a business intelligence dashboard. This was seen as key to changing how the University works, communicates and delivers the student experience. It was soon realised however that the quality of Finance and HR data was significantly better than the quality of student data. The University’s Change Board considered whether to move forward anyway in order to drive improvements to student data but, concluded that this would lead to a lack of confidence in the Dashboard overall which would place the whole programme in jeopardy. A project to improve the quality of student data was therefore undertaken first.

University of Falmouth: business intelligence

The University undertook a major initiative in terms of developing a new executive reporting service. It found change management to be the biggest issue: there was a lack of trust in the data (both “at source” and “as presented”). It also identified the need to create a culture shift amongst senior managers away from spreadsheet thinking to an appreciation of the importance of high quality data and the need to fund backend personnel as an inevitable focus on wanting explanations for short-term ‘bumps’ in the data, was directing resources towards knee- jerk requests for ad-hoc reports. It also recognised that creating such a reporting service is a multidisciplinary activity and that an IT focused solution would be bound to fail. The University also had an interesting observation about how agile project management methodologies were being applied in practice:

We have found that the term ‘Agile’ is bandied about as cover for not following a process and not providing documentation. If ‘Agile’ methods are to be used they should be formalised in the same manner as any other methodology.

Ackerman, L. (1997) Development, transition or transformation: the question of change in organisations. In: Van Eynde, D., Hoy, J. and Van Eynde, D. (eds) Organisation Development Classics. San Francisco, Jossey Bass. Anghern, A. (2004) Behind the EIS Simulation: An overview of models underlying the simulation dynamics, CALT Report. Available at: http://www.calt.insead.edu/eis/documents/EISSimulationUnderlyingModels.pdf [Accessed: 27 January 2014].

Arnstein, S. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation in the USA. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 4 pp 216-24.

Bridges, W. (1998) Leading Organizational Transitions. Available at: http://www.wmbridges.com. [Accessed: 27 January 2014].

Brown, J. & Isaacs, D. (2005) The world cafe: shaping our futures through conversations that matter. Berrett- Koehler Publishers, Inc. San Francisco.

Conner, D.R. and Patterson, R.B. (1982) Building Commitment to Organizational Change. Training and Development Journal, 36(4), 18-30.

Cooperrider, D. & Whitney, D. (2005) Appreciative Inquiry: a positive revolution in change. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. San Francisco.

Dawson, S.J.N.D. (1996) Analysing Organisations. Hampshire, Macmillan.

Fullan, M. (1999) Change Forces: The Sequel. Falmer Press.

Gladwell, M. (2000) The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Boston u.a.: Little, Brown.

Goldberg, M. (1997) The Art of the question: a guide to short term question centred therapy. Wiley, New York.

Higher Education Academy Resources on Facilitating Change. Available at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/change [Accessed: 27 January 2014].

Hopkins, D. (2002) The Evolution of Strategies for Educational Change: Implications for Higher Education. LTSN Generic Centre. Available at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ —/The_evolution_of_strategies__for_educational_change [Accessed: 27 January 2014].

Kotter, J. (1995) Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail, Harvard Business Review, March-April.

Lewin, R. and Regine, B. (1999) The Soul at Work: Unleashing the power of complexity science for business success. Orion Business.

Lockitt, W. (2004) Change Management. 3T Productions. Available at: http://archive.excellencegateway.org.uk/ …/CHANGE%20MANAGEMENT%20ISBN.pdf [Accessed: 27 January 2014].

Lucas, A. (1999) Six fallacies that stifle change – and how to overcome them. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin November 1999.

McNay, I. (1995) From the collegial academy to the corporate enterprise: the changing cultures of universities in Schuller, T. (ed) The Changing University? Buckingham, SRHE and the Open University press.

Mintzberg, H. (1989) Mintzberg on Management: inside our strange world of organisations Chicago, Free Press.

Markus, M.L. (1983) ‘Power, politics, and MIS implementation,’ Communications of the ACM, vol. 26, no. 6, June, pp. 430–444.

Marquardt, M., Leonard, H. S., Freedman, A., & Hill, C. (2009) Action learning for developing leaders and organizations: Principles, strategies, and cases. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Olson, E.E. and Eoyang, G.H. (2001) Facilitating Organizational Change: Lessons from Complexity Science. Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Orlikowski, W. (1996) Improvising organisational transformation over time: a situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), p63-92.

Pennington, G. (2003) Guidelines for Promoting and Facilitating Change, LTSN Generic Centre. Available at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/…/id296_Promoting_and_facilitating_change.pdf [Accessed: 27 January 2014].

Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R. (2000) The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publications.

Revans, R. (1983) Action Learning: Its Origins and Nature, in Pedler, M. (ed.) Action Learning in Practice. Gower, Aldershot, pp 5-13.

Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.

Salmon, G. (2005) Flying not flapping: a strategic framework for e-learning and pedagogical innovation in higher education institutions. ALT-J, 13 (3), 201-218.

Stacey, R. (1996) Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics. 2nd Ed, London, Pitman.

Thurley, K. and Wirdenius, H. (1973) Supervision: A Reappraisal,London, Heinemann.

Weick, K. E. and Quinn, R. E. (1999) Organisational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50 p361-86.