Home

IT Developments and Changes in Customer Demand in Higher Education

by Sloan-C

I. INTRODUCTION

Recently great interest has been paid to the changes in the education industry, with the introduction of corporate universities, for-profit universities and virtual universities, the traditional brick building universities have started to worry about their future prospects [1]. Several studies show that consumers are growing in numbers, and that they demand a type of flexibility that conventional universities cannot provide in their present form and structure-learning unconstrained by time and place and at an affordable price [2]. The education market is becoming consumer driven, and higher education institutions have to respond to the market in order to survive. According to Kevin Oakes [3], the president of Click2Learn.com: "The way we educate people today is the exact same way we educated people 2,000 years ago. Education is the last great frontier to be revolutionised by technology."

With the introduction of high flexibility, low cost alternatives, the monopoly in education is gone and conventional universities are being forced to reconsider their position. Writers in the field propose a number of different strategies, but a common theme is that they embrace multimedia technology as a communication tool. There is no way to escape, and no way to provide what the consumers want without Information Technology (IT) [4]. In America, research shows that the numbers of cyberstudents will more than triple by the turn of the century. Currently there are 1 million compared with 13 million attending conventional universities. The forecast, by management philosopher Peter Drucker, [4 (p. 84)] is quite dark: "Universities won't survive. The future is outside the traditional campus, outside the traditional classroom. Distance learning is coming on fast."

Other writers in the field are not quite as cynical and suggest that by first of all embracing IT, and secondly collaborating and establishing partnerships, the traditional university can position itself in the future. However, it will be in a form very different from the present one, and it requires management and staff alike to adopt and accept that the future is in cyberspace. This will undoubtedly be quite a culture change that will require considerable internal training and rethinking of the traditional ways, a re-engineering of the organisation [5].

II. increasing global competition between educational establishments

The education sector is starting to behave like any other industry operating in an open competitive market, potentially with international as well as domestic "outlets" and less like a traditional public sector giant [6]. Higher education institutions throughout the world are competing against each other, through technology, reaching markets far beyond their geographical limitations-markets that previously were thought unreachable [2]. Subsequently traditional universities are facing the challenge of a profoundly altered environment. The needs and circumstances of its potential clients are being transformed and enriched by technology [7], and higher education institutions will need to be adaptable or their relevance and utility alike will fade. According to Daniel [7] it may be unwise to bet against conventional universities, for they have rich traditions, among other things, of adaptability, flexibility and creativity. They have succeeded in reinventing themselves too often in the past to be dismissed prematurely as having passed their "use-by" date. On the other hand, as reported by Gilbert [2], they have never faced so profound a challenge. There is no doubt that universities need to be aware of the competitive pressure engendered by advances in technology and of the opportunities and options this presents in terms of cost and benefits [1]. Hague [5] has identified three dominant trends transforming higher education in the next century.

1. The rise of knowledge based companies in both manufacturing and services

2. The growth of pure knowledge business within industries

3. The development of information technology (IT) and communications technology

In an increasingly competitive market for educational services and under rising competitive threats between US, UK and other educational providers, who are themselves using the technology to penetrate new markets, universities may need to review their products, channels, customers and portfolio [6]. Market opportunities open up, and a diversifying student base can be realised if more access and delivery channels are available, as described by Stamps [8]. It will be important, however, to maintain the appeal of the current offerings by increasing study flexibility and pathways, and to use expanded access options to facilitate innovative educational delivery strategies. Pritchard and Jones [1] identify the key enablers as continuous commitment to standardised content development, to Intellectual Property management and to staff and flexible delivery support structures. Off campus export education offers any university an opportunity to compete with a different teaching structure, a comparative advantage in terms of their ability to acquire teaching materials from perceived higher quality lectures and to package and broker these into their course offerings [1].

New educational providers have sprung up over the last few years in order to fill the undeniable demand for open, flexible, lifelong learning. The new providers include for-profit universities, corporate universities, virtual universities and organisations such as Microsoft whose primary business is not education but who control facilities central to it [9], [10]. The new providers have a number of advantages, one of which is the fact that they in many cases control the means of delivery. Further they do not carry the academic "baggage" of established institutions and are free from their bureaucratic and entrenched attitudes to education. Subsequently, as noted by Mason [10], they can as "green field" sites set up systems geared specifically to a global market, rather than have to adapt existing procedures and therefore they present a significant threat to conventional universities.

One of the new providers that has the potential of dominating the future is the virtual university. Gilbert [2] proposes that a pure-bred virtual university is in cyberspace-without walls, coffee bars, or seminar rooms. This type of virtual university is already upon us. In the UK the Open University has demonstrated the way with its distance learning techniques. The work of Gilbert [2 (p. 4)] suggests that, "virtual is the shape of things to come." International virtual universities will offer courses with high "brand" recognition, and may even be based on franchising via the information superhighway of one or more of the great education brands, perhaps an "Ivy League" university or a consortium of universities. If the so-called traditional university is to survive in this new environment, they will do so only by matching the multimedia sophistication and global educational networking of the virtual universities. Distance learning is cheaper than fulltime education, and according to the work of Daniel [7] poses a great threat for those who have not adopted it. The traditional universities must themselves, driven by competition and market forces, become virtual universities and demonstrate that they can offer education of a significant, qualitative difference and superiority, accessibility and low cost [10]. The first step, as presented by Gilbert [2], is to ensure that the information highway runs through every great campus, and the second is to ensure that the riches it brings are in turn enriched in a real learning environment.

Since traditional universities no longer have a monopoly on higher education as they used to, they have to embrace new technology and forge stronger relationships with industry in order to fight off the challenge [11]. To establish a competitive platform a university could form joint ventures and partnerships with outside organisations all jointed technologically [5]. The partnership-building theory is shared by a number of writers within the field, among others Weir and Smallman [11] who also forecast that schools will have increased partnerships with industries and with foreign schools, since the building of partnerships is the essence of surviving. One problem with extensive partnership building is however the issue of curriculum control, an important factor which Authers [9] points out should not be underestimated.

III. changes in consumer demand and characteristics

The transformations of traditional universities are not only caused by the changes in the level of competition nationally and internationally and the presence of virtual universities, but also as a response to both increasing and changing world-wide demand for higher education. Pritchard and Jones [1] point out that growing populations and embourgeoisement increase the demand for education as an economic benefit and status provider. Increasing urbanisation and bureaucratisation demand educated people to work, and as economies grow, the need for educated people steadily rises. The rising demand is dominated by a variety of students who will make various requests of a university body that is not used to serving large numbers. The augmentation includes a significant growth in the mature student market. In the UK "mature" students who have had some break from continuous full-time education after school [6] now account for the majority of enrolments.

These changes reinforce the fact that students are becoming consumers who do not accept whatever they are given. A new breed of students is emerging, raised by the growing importance being attached to education and training, both by individuals and by society as a whole [5]. Extended or continuing learning has come to be seen as important to the lives and employment prospects of all citizens, not only to an elite few [6]. These radical movements have lead to a serious change in the market type, which is advancing towards a totally consumer lead market, a point, which according to Key Note [5] and others, many universities do not realise. Forecasts by Pritchard and Jones [1] show that the changes will lead to a shortage of funds. This forecast is supported by Duguet [6], who further points out that institutes of higher education must adopt innovative less-costly approaches to providing education for the growing number of students, whose demands are a significant challenge to all existing universities.

Many writers [5], [11], [12] agree that in order to fulfil the needs of a student body growing in both number and diversity, and to meet their massive demands for increased amounts of flexibility, new approaches must be taken. As consumer-driven entities, universities must respond in order to survive. The students of the multimedia generation will be empowered and aware consumers, choosing their education from the whole world's offerings. If universities cannot deliver, the student will "shop" elsewhere [5]. The student role is changing from receiving to one of interacting and selecting [1]. Most importantly, what many of the students will want is an increasingly global education, including but unconstrained by the localism, nationalism and regionalism of present higher education and its institutions [1]. Universities, in order to remain competitive, must therefore be able to provide learning that is living up to the needs of the market. Pritchard and Jones [1] reason that higher education is facing three challenges.

1. First of all, it must be readily available to all that may benefit, regardless of formal admission criteria and at affordable prices.

2. Secondly, it must be flexible in delivery, so that students can learn when, where and at whatever rate suits them.

3. Finally, flexibility in content and outcome must be provided, so that students may acquire degrees, or a particular skill, and shape individual outcomes through their choice and adaptation of their studies.

This, according to the work of Pritchard and Jones [1], means allowing learning to happen at any time, from any location with simplified high performance remote access. These views are supported by 3Com [13] which states that students will want to be productive and learn only when they choose to.

Since the market is consumer driven, according to Duguet [6], whatever the consumers demand will be supplied. Most people want a flexible education system, and fulltime enrolment based at an academic institution does not suit all. This unsuitability of fulltime enrolment is, according to Duguet [6], caused by three reasons.

The new group of students have families, jobs and their schedule does not fit with conventional university hours.

A number of people live or work far away from institutions that interest them, or are physically handicapped. This results in a problem of the location of teaching, which increases as the diversity of people's learning requirements makes teaching supply more specialised.

Finally bad memories of compulsory schooling may further alienate some potential students from traditional learning institutions, which they regard as unsuited to modern pedagogy.

The diversity of demand from these client groups therefore has to be matched by a diversity of supply. It should be noted that, according to Duguet [6], it is unlikely to be provided by any one type of institution, or even necessarily by a single nationally supervised system of education. The whole present system of higher education is being challenged by the new demands for instruction adapted to student requirements and by technological progress. Meeting those requirements means putting the student at the centre of the system, which in itself represents a substantial change. The solution proposed is extensive use of technologies. Duguet [6] points out that it may shock supporters of status quo, but there are no alternatives.

Stamps [8] provides one example of a student-centred university, geared towards one type of the future demands. The University of Philadelphia in the USA delivers college degrees designed to fit the hectic schedule of working adults. Each class meets from 6 to 10 p.m. one night a week for five or six weeks, and all materials are available online, giving the older student market what they want-flexibility and convenience. According to Stamps [8], it is "convenience, convenience, convenience, customer service, customer service, customer service" or the end of your university's existence.

Despite the apparent benefits of making the majority of education virtual, a serious issue raised by Crock [12], is that there are students that are not adequately prepared or equipped to operate effectively in a technologically mediated teaching and learning environment that will be used in order to serve cost-effectively. Crock [12] continues that many students approach university studies with the traditional view of university study (e.g., one of an expert, teacher centred model of teaching and learning). If students persist with this perspective, when they are confronted with a student-centred learning environment in technologically mediated classrooms, and with a number of choices and decisions, they will have a sense of expectations not being met. This leads to uncertainty regarding the quality of the teaching and learning they are experiencing [12]. The tendency seems, however, that in the future, value for money and suitability for use will unquestionably be the student regulated quality standards [1], but that there will be something suited for everyone.

It should be noted that a study by Allen and Wilson [14] found that whilst students appreciate the advantages of online learning systems, many choose traditional learning environments because they believe that they will learn more through face-to-face lectures, and the tutor support will be constant and more forthcoming throughout the course. According to Clark [15] many students will opt for traditional campus based environment because they need a sense of belonging to learn, "Campus life for most young students is not just about lectures, it is about love, liquor and life. These young students will always want a life on campus."

IV. changes in the organisational structure

A. Partnership Building and Collaboration
Traditional universities are being challenged by competitors and consumers alike. The former compete both locally, regionally, nationally and internationally; the latter demand flexibility. These are pressures that few traditional brick building universities can withstand or live up to [7]. In an era where technology will make delivery unbound by campuses, and accessible through multimedia technology, the solution according to Pritchard and Jones [1], may be relatively simple: future-oriented universities will utilise the available technology and thereby open the door to both flexibility and ability to compete internationally. Cyberspace can do several things: it can replicate and transmit educational products to a large and dispersed number of persons, cheaply and efficiently. It can make this education flexibly available to those precluded for whatever reasons, from attendance at the time and place of the conventional institution [1]. It can facilitate the assembling of critical masses of intellectual and economic resources to create new, advanced research and teaching [1]. And the effect of this? Perry and Wake [16 (p.14.)] put it very precisely: "There will have to be fundamental changes in the structure and style of higher education." The structures of higher education will thus have to adapt to the fast-moving, competitive, consumer-driven environment it is operating in.

First of all, there is a clear signal coming from a number of the writers within the field [7], [11], [17], [18] predicting a growing need for creating partnerships with other education providers. No one university is strong enough on its own, but by linking up with other educational institutions, major advantages, according to the writers, are created. The technology available will make it possible to create links with partners far away. Martin et al. [17] predict consortiums of more than 5000 international universities, establishing a common database and sharing materials. Clearly, this would have tremendous advantages, but even on a smaller scale, as suggested by Weir and Smallman [11], where two or three universities form a partnership in order to gain a competitive advantage and to benefit from sharing information, resources and markets, the merits are clear. The alliances would possibly, as indicated by Daniel [7] and Pritchard and Jones [1], lead to a low cost of material development and a great accumulation of knowledge and expertise from different perspectives and present a substantial improvement to all teaching materials. The theories of partnership building imply quite a considerable change from the current internal/stable structure that generally marks higher education.

B. Partnerships With Businesses and Outsourcing
Additional research by Pritchard and Jones [1] suggests that there are tremendous benefits for virtual universities to extend their partnership building/collaborations to involve organisations outside the education industry. Collaboration is essential when developing high quality technological materials, because the best people are seldom concentrated in one place. By creating partnerships with media and technology companies, great advantages can be found [17]. Expertise in new technologies and instructional design is rare and dispersed, and broad participation in production can lead to wide acceptability of the product. Therefore the most sensible approach to virtual teaching material development is clearly to use organisations engaged in this as their core business [1]. Daniel [7] supports these views and predicts that this will lead to substantial cost savings, as well as materials of a significantly higher quality. With the new technological inventions, external suppliers can carry out non-core activities better than they could have been carried out internally, and thereby the views of Pritchard and Jones [1] are supported when they propose an added value and possibly cost savings by outsourcing. Hughes [18 (p. 2)] is also an advocate of extensive collaborations and presents the opportunity to work, "...in collaboration with broadcasters and multimedia producers." If these collaborations were sought in combination with partnerships it likely would provide a substantial way of lowering costs and improving quality for everyone involved [18].

This, along with findings of the benefits of founding partnerships, suggests that it is likely that universities will collaborate to a great extent in the future--not only with other universities but also with businesses. This leads to the assumption that the university structure will be increasingly dynamic, with the non-core activities outsourced or completed in collaboration with experts in the specific field as mentioned by Daniel [7]. Pritchard and Jones [1] state that this will give universities the dynamic competitive and flexible structure that is fit for the environment and that can provide the desired cost-effectiveness and quality demanded by the consumers.

V. Changes in the teaching environment

A. Lecturers and Lecturing
The impact of technological implementations, partnerships and collaborations could subsequently, as noted by Stamps [8] and Hughes [18], lead to changes in the roles of lecturers and management alike. According to the same writers, the structure of future universities will be either fully or partially virtual and consist of a network of links with outside suppliers, leaving universities to concentrate on their core activity, teaching. Technological inventions are enabling a better and different performance and have eliminated the barriers of time, place and sequence. This will enable a fusion of activities in ways that have been unfathomable until now [19]. New technologies can thus be interpreted as leading to both job creation and job destruction-with new jobs that may not match the old ones in terms of skills or location [17], [19].

Pritchard and Jones [1] suggest exploiting technology to facilitate learning by replacing the worst parts of lecturing and examining, and filling the gaps in universities, libraries, laboratories and staff. The social interactions of good traditional teaching can be facilitated technologically, while the central interaction-the student interaction with the content of the course-is achieved and enhanced through well-designed materials. This will, according to Pritchard and Jones [1], ensure that academics can carefully assemble resources and craft their presentations for duplication, instead of endlessly duplicating in the lecture theatre, a less thoughtful assembly and arrangement.

The writers continue that although the student contact is relatively brief, it is individualised and intellectually intense, as the academic can go one on one with the student who has a well-developed idea or question. As described by Daniel [7], the balance of the lecturer's tasks therefore moves from information delivery (requiring class presence) to the management of educational opportunities and experiences, facilitated from the students perspective, through improved access and delivery options. One result of this changed focus could be an increased attention to lecturers. Gubernick and Ebeling [4] propose that in the future there could be "celebrity professors" with incomes and audiences comparable to some entertainers, since technology enables them to reach large numbers, perhaps millions of students. This would be made possible because technology allows teachers not to be present at a given location, but if they wish to conduct their work remotely and access network online, without having to leave their homes [4].

Other writers, such as Martin et al. [17], go further and predict that because of no need to be physically present, lecturers will not be employed by one single institution, but rather by a number of different ones. This will, according to Martin et al. [17], provide the lecturer with quite a substantial amount of freedom-allowing him/her to work as little or as much as desired, for a selected group of universities, and at the hours preferred, giving the individual much more freedom than if working 9-5 in a brick building. Further Martin et al. [17] suggest that the individual teacher's performance will be rated and evaluated by the student and that future employment will depend on the scores. This is a substantial change to a more performance-related job security, and puts a pressure on the individual to perform well. This, according to Daniel [7], presents some management difficulties, but also opportunities, since a university will be able to "hand pick" lecturers for specific courses, not having to offer full-time positions, and being entitled to discharge staff if their ratings are not satisfying. Daniel [7 (p. 145)] further clarifies that, "...we are not facing a time where lecturers are not demanded..." but a time where the role of teaching will change and open up to both opportunities and threats for staff and institution alike.

B. Implementation Problems
Crock [12] points out that the staffs in many institutions are facing major challenges in working effectively in the new teaching and learning environments they are now exposed to. The use of technology mediated teaching environments is driven by external demands, and the need for change is perceived as threatening. In order to overcome this perceived threat and to meet the needs of both staff and students, professional development and student awareness strategies need to be instigated and promoted [12]. All parties must, according to Daniel [7], come to grips with the concept of change from a lecturer centred model to a learner-centred model of tertiary education and the skills and experiences required by both staff and students to make this transition successful.

In recent work on change involving technology, Crock [12] has raised issues concerning the state of flux that the current tertiary education environment finds itself in. According to the writers, there is no doubt that the reported changes in education influenced by the rapid development and implementation of information technologies is placing high demands on staff and students. While information technologies are rapidly being introduced into everyday teaching and learning environments, there are still a significant number of both students and staff who are not adequately prepared or equipped to operate efficiently in such technologically mediated teaching and learning environments [12].

Institutes of higher education therefore need to adopt an approach to transfer/teach technology skills to students and staff. Daniel [7 (p. 157)] sees employee training and development as "...key to successful deployment of new technology in teaching." Further, Mason [10] reports that there is a lack of this staff training, that it is needed in order to teach with the new technologies, and that this is followed by a lack of an appropriate reward structure to attract staff to adopt new methods. Subsequently, there is a whole range of bureaucratic procedures, academic intransigence and administrative inertia that prevent a re-engineering of the institution [10].

VI. SUMMARY

Forecasts show that traditional brick building universities are going to be left behind by corporate universities, for-profit universities and virtual universities. They are facing the choice of either adapting to the changes in the environment or being overtaken by competitors. Historically education has been a monopoly business, but with the technological changes and a changing attitude in society towards learning, new entrants are threatening to overtake the market. The primary reason for this is that conventional universities cannot deliver what the customer wants: personalised education unconstrained by time and place.

Contemporary observers suggest that in order to survive universities need to embrace IT and use it to provide high quality, flexible education. In order to be competitive the organisational structures need to reflect the environment, and this means a change from the present rigid and inflexible internal/stable structure, to a more fluid, flexible type. This implies outsourcing of non-core activities and collaborations with external suppliers. The aim is to reduce costs and improve quality. These observers further suggest that technological developments could change the role and position of the lecturer. It is predicted that individual lecturers may be employed by a number of universities and will be able to conduct the majority of their work via networks from wherever they are located. This presents yet another change to the internal structure of universities.

One of the issues identified in this paper is the fact many universities and lecturers are not prepared for the changes or might not be able to adapt to technologically mediated teaching, both in terms of willingness and abilities. Likewise some students might want a traditional education setting, with face-to-face interaction. These findings suggest that not only will universities in the future have to put great emphasis on training and education, but they will also have the opportunity to specialise and cater for individual needs by building up niches, or becoming part virtual, part spatial. There seems no doubt, one way or the other, that the world is changing, and education will change with it.

vii. References

1. Pritchard, T., and Jones, D., Open Learning And/As The Virtual University, University Of Melbourne, The Virtual University? Symposium, Melbourne, Australia, November 21-22, 1996.
2. Gilbert, A., The Virtual and the Real in the Idea of a University, University of Melbourne, The Virtual University? Symposium, Melbourne, Australia, November 21-22, 1996.
3. Oakes, K., in Sullivan, B., Earn a Degree in Your Jammies, MSNBC, Oct., 26^th, 1999. Available: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2381626,00.html Accessed May 3rd, 2000.
4. Gubernick, L., and Ebeling, A., I got my Degree Through E-mail, Forbes, Vol. 159, No. 12, p. 84(6), June, 1997.
5. Hague, Beyond Universities: A New Republic of the Intellect, In Fenn, D., (Ed.), Further and Higher Education, 2^nd Ed., Key Note, Hampton, UK, Market Report, p. 55, 1999.
6. Duguet, P., Education: Face to Face or Distance?, OECD Observer, No. 194 p.17 (4), June-July, 1995.
7. Daniel, J., Mega Universities and Knowledge Media, Technology Strategies for Higher Education, Great Britain, Kogan Page Limited, 1996.
8. Stamps, D., The For-profit Future of Higher Education, Training, Vol. 35 No. 8 p. 22 (9), August, 1998.
9. Authers, J., Motorola Leads the Way in the Corporate University Sector, Financial Times Newspaper, June 18^th, 1998.
10. Mason, R., Anatomy of the Virtual University, The Virtual University? Symposium, Melbourne, Australia November 21-22, 1996.
11. Weir, D., and Smallman, D., Managers in the Year 2000 and After: A Strategy for Development, Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. p. 43 (9), Jan-Feb. 1998.
12. Crock, M., Evolving as a Fourth Generation University: A Case Study in Promoting Change for Sustained Growth at Central Queensland University, University of Melbourne, The Virtual University? Symposium, Melbourne, Australia, November 21-22, 1996.
13. Education in the Information Age, 3COM, 1999. Available: http://www.3com.com
14. Allen, D., and Wilson, T., Competitors Bleeding Edge, The Times Higher Education, March 8th, 1996.
15. Clark, M., Students on Silicon Campus, The Guardian On-Line, p. 2-3, 9th March, 2000.
16. Perry, G., and Wake, C. (Eds.), Access and Alternative Futures for Higher Education, London: Hodder & Stoughton Educational, 1990.
17. Martin, J., Darby, J., and Kjollerstrom, B., Higher Education 1998 Transformed by Learning Technology: Report on a Joint Anglo/Swedish Workshop. In the CTISS File: Issue 16, CTISS Publications, Oxford, January 1994.
18. Hughes, C., And What About The Teachers? The Guardian Newspaper, p. 12, 8 Sept, 1998.
19. Norris, D., Transforming Higher Education Unleashing the Power of Perpetual Learners, University of Melbourne, The Virtual University? Symposium, Melbourne, Australia, November 21-22, 1996.

viii. About the Author

John O'Donoghue's background covers a wide range of educational experiences. In his early career he taught in a social priority area school, moving later to post graduate lecturing, advising and consultancy for both initial teaching training and education departments and more recently a position as the senior education officer within a large education authority.

In 1991 Mr. O'Donoghue was granted the position of Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Keele. He hosted the largest UK academic technology conference in 1997, attracting most of the UK Higher Education community and a significant number of overseas delegates. In August 1998 he was invited to join a team of researchers as part of a UNESCO funded project looking at the use and development of technology in educational applications. The same year he was appointed Visiting Research Fellow at the University of Wollongong, Australia, specialising in the development and delivery of flexible course material via multiple media.

For many years an advocate of the "global classroom," Mr. O'Donoghue continues to write and publish extensively on the use and exploitation of the information in information technology. In his present post he is responsible for the academic and pedagogical aspects of networked learning technologies with special emphasis on the education and training sector.