cpd provision and training needs for bce practitioners · 2018-06-18 · cpd provision and training...

CPD Provision and Training Needs for BCE Practitioners


Research conducted by:

Helen Blanchett, Consultant Trainer Daniel McAtominey, Consultant Trainer

Report compiled by:

Tim Dixon Report date:

27/05/2009 Report version:

1.1 Contact:

[email protected] Netskills Information Systems and Services Claremont Tower Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 2

2.1 BACKGROUND RESEARCH ........................................................................................... 2 2.2 WORKSHOP................................................................................................................ 2 2.3 SURVEY & INTERVIEWS ............................................................................................... 2

3 BACKGROUND................................................................................................................ 2 3.1 BCE IN THE UK.......................................................................................................... 2 3.2 PREVIOUS UK NEEDS ANALYSES AND STUDIES ............................................................. 3 3.3 EXISTING SKILLS FRAMEWORKS AND RESOURCES......................................................... 3 3.4 INTERNATIONAL VIEW.................................................................................................. 4

4 THE WORKSHOP – COMING TO TERMS WITH TERMS.............................................. 6 4.1 WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF BCE? .................................................................................... 6 4.2 OBSTACLES TO BCE .................................................................................................. 9 4.3 WORKSHOP CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 12

5 ANALYSIS OF ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS ............................................................... 14 5.1 PERCEIVED IMPORTANCE OF BCE............................................................................. 14 5.2 COLLABORATION WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND STAFF EXCHANGE ............................ 15 5.3 CURRENT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES................................................. 17 5.4 TRAINING SUBJECT NEEDS ....................................................................................... 23 5.5 TRAINING DELIVERY NEEDS ...................................................................................... 24

6 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS........................................................................................... 25 6.1 INTERVIEW PROFILES................................................................................................ 25 6.2 TERMINOLOGY.......................................................................................................... 25 6.3 JISC ROLE .............................................................................................................. 26 6.4 CPD IN BCE............................................................................................................ 26 6.5 CPD SKILLS REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... 28

7 TRAINING NEEDS ......................................................................................................... 29 A CPD SURVEY QUESTIONS .......................................................................................... 32 B CONSULTATION WORKSHOP PROGRAMME ........................................................... 35

B.1 WORKSHOP FLYER ................................................................................................... 35


1

1 Summary This report contains the results of research conducted by means of survey, focus group and individual telephone interview with practitioners of Business and Community Engagement (BCE) to assess existing provision for their Continuing Professional Development (CPD), perceived future needs and the extent to which the JISC can contribute to filling those needs and any gaps in existing provision. The research forms part of the JISC Business & Community Engagement programme and was conducted by members of the Netskills team at Newcastle University in the first three months of 2009. A focus group meeting was held in London on 22nd January, 2009, involving 19 representatives covering those who work directly in the BCE field (for example in a Research Enterprise Office) and those who provide support services (for example in Libraries and IT). In parallel, an online survey with a wide BCE audience was conducted over a period of approximately 6 weeks in January and February, 2009. A total of 311 survey responses were received, principally from the Higher Education and Further Education sectors, but also from other agencies and commercial organisations involved mostly in knowledge transfer. More than 40% reported a primary interest in Knowledge Transfer; approximately 17% were involved in Work-Based Learning. Of the 311, 28 participated in more detailed telephone interviews to elaborate their responses. The results of the survey suggest that although respondents were in general satisfied with the quality of such support as they were able to make use of from within their institutions, much of the support available was not seen as relevant to BCE staff. Consequently, staff do not feel that the CPD resources available to them are adequate. A number of institutional barriers to BCE activities were identified by the focus group, the survey and the telephone interviews. These followed the same pattern (processes, communication, bureaucracy, access to resources) as identified in previous exercises of a similar kind, suggesting that these obstacles are ingrained in institutional practice. Responses suggest, too, that there is a certain amount of institutional tension over the BCE agenda between business development staff and academic staff and that mutual misunderstanding may be hampering the process. A minority (88 out of 311) of survey respondents reported using JISC services or resources in their Continuing Professional Development, although the subjects in which they were most interested (web dissemination, information management and information search) are clearly areas in which JISC services have expertise. It appears that there is scope for JISC services to deliver relevant and effective support to the CPD needs of BCE practitioners, provided that support is seen as relevant and targeted and is delivered in co-operation with organisations that have an established presence within the BCE sector. It is also important that institutions offer an environment in which practitioners can make effective use of the support offered.


2

2 Methodology

2.1 Background research Wide consultation with stakeholders in the field including AURIL (Association for University Research and Industry Links), PRAXIS, members of the JISC BCE Advisory Group, the JISC Advisory Services and institutional contacts made it possible to reach a large potential audience of relevant practitioners and we are grateful to the large number of people who participated in our research. We also reviewed previous studies into BCE, both published and unpublished, and thank the authors with whom we have corresponded directly.

2.2 Workshop The initial step in stakeholder consultation was to hold a workshop focussed on the experience of those “involved in supporting the needs of BCE practitioners within institutions, including IT services, staff development, libraries, human resources and administration” (for more information see Section 4). The purpose of this workshop was to determine the issues likely to affect BCE practitioners and inform the development of a wider online survey.

2.3 Survey & interviews Using feedback from the workshop and other stakeholders, an online survey was designed using an online collaboration system to review and revise the questions. The survey, which asked for information about current CPD practice as well as future needs, was then made available online (for more information see Section 4) and was completed by 311 respondents from a wide cross-section of BCE functions. Telephone interviews were conducted in somewhat more depth of 28 of the survey respondents.

3 Background

3.1 BCE in the UK Official UK policy on “third stream” activities dates back to 1999 and the “Higher Education Reach Out to Business and the Community” scheme (HEROBC). This was followed in 2002 with the Higher Education Innovation Fund amounting to around six percent of the annual research allocation. A HEFCE/Office of Science & Technology report in 2006i stating that “Third stream activity is now firmly embedded within institutions, and the sector is strongly committed to continuing to develop this as a core activity of HE”. It is worth noting, however, that, although the “official online gateway to Higher Education and Research in the UK” (http://www.hero.ac.uk/) has a direct link to a “business” section, it has not been updated to include the successor programmes to HEROBC and has no similarly prominent reference to “community”. This reflects two common themes in our consultation – that there is a gap between the policy

i Higher Education Innovation Fund; Summary evaluation of the first round (2001-05). HEFCE/OST, February 2006.


3

commitment to BCE and ongoing front-line implementation and that the “C” in “BCE” does not perhaps receive the prominence that published policy might imply. The UK has a significant number of organisations actively supporting the “B” in BCE, including AURIL (Association for University Research and Industry Links, http://www.auril.org.uk/), the Institute of Knowledge Transfer (http://www.ikt.org.uk) and Praxis (http://www.praxiscourses.org.uk/) all of which have a role in the development or accreditation of training relevant to BCE CPD. Sixty-three percent of survey respondents reported using resources from one of these organisations as part of their CPD. AURIL, in particular, has made great efforts to formalise a CPD process for BCE and has worked with the Open University to develop a Postgraduate Certificate in Knowledge Transfer. Although this course is presently in abeyance, it is expected that a similar programme will be provided by another institution.

3.2 Previous UK needs analyses and studies There is previous research into the support needs of BCE practitioners. Studies include:

• Competencies and Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for Academics in Knowledge Exchange (KE) Activity Jan Francis-Smythe (Worcester Business School) et al, November 2006

• A Review of and Recommendations for Development and Training in EKT at the University of Leeds Jennifer Chubb, University of Leeds, November 2008 (Unpublished)

• How JISC could support Business and Community Engagement Stephen Hill (University of Bristol) et al (undated)

Although we were specifically looking at BCE CPD from the JISC perspective, the skills requirements for BCE practitioners that were identified in our research seem broadly consistent with other studies.

3.3 Existing skills frameworks and resources The most authoritative exposition of the professional skills employed in BCE is to be found in AURIL’s Continuing Professional Development Framework for Knowledge Transfer Practitioners. The Worcester Business School report mentioned above looks at skills frameworks including the AURIL framework and the HERA job analysis scheme used in Higher Education and their relationship to BCE competencies and skills as well as barriers to implementation of CPD. Our observation was that the majority of the identified skills are “soft” skills- communication, negotiation, teamwork – which do not necessarily mesh directly with the JISC remit. There are areas in which IT can support these skills (for example online collaboration) and there are also areas of “hard” knowledge (for example, IPR relating to digital media) where the JISC has direct expertise. Equally, other organisations (such as Praxis) already provide resources which it would be foolish to duplicate.


4

The primary challenge of this project will be to find a way in which we can exploit existing resources from a variety of sources to provide a comprehensive and integrated solution to CPD needs.

3.4 International view The international view of BCE closely reflects the culture of the individual countries in which BCE activity takes place. In the US, the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 established a right for research institutions to own the results of federally-funded programmes (previously IPR remained with the funding agency). This has spurred a growth in technology licensing offices in US HEIs and a specific focus on the legal aspects of technology transfer. The Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM, http://www.autm.net/) has a range of online Professional Development Courses and other events covering patent, licensing and related issues. There are of course a wide range of different types of Further/Higher Education institutions in the US and it is difficult to make generalisations. However, there are widespread examples of significant community engagement in the sense of volunteering or charitable activity (for example, MIT’s Public Service Center) as well as in offering community access to galleries and museums (e.g. the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale). There are also a variety of collaborative research programmes and industry-sponsored academic programmes which engage with business (typically technology businesses). It would appear, however, that these different business and community strands are not routinely viewed as part of a “collective” BCE process but as individual activities with separate goals and motivations. In Europe there is also a variety of practice. In France, for example, there are several public research institutes (EPST) in different academic disciplines: research organisation INRIA has a specific research and technology-transfer brief in the field of ICT. In Germany, the Max Planck institutes undertake research that does not directly fit within the University system and exploits the results by means of a wholly-owned technology-transfer arm whereas the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft is primarily an institute which conducts applied research under contract to both industry and the public sector. There is a Europe-wide Association of European Science & Technology Transfer Professionals (ASTP, http://www.astp.net/) which is focused on technology transfer and has a training programme of a similar nature to that of the AUTM. Although institutional arrangements may be different, the underlying skills required for BCE appear to be common. Proton Europe (http://www.protoneurope.org/), the European Knowledge Transfer Association, commissioned a review of AURIL’s Continuing Professional Development Framework for Knowledge Transfer Practitioners in the context of European KT CPD requirements and concluded that the competencies and skills required were essentially the same, A major report on Knowledge Transfer was produced for the Australian Government in 2006 with an emphasis on Knowledge Transfer for Commercial Benefit and drawing significantly on UK experience. Knowledge Commercialisation Australasia (http://www.kca.asn.au/) which “shares and enhances world’s best practice in


5

knowledge commercialisation” has recently issued its first Commercialisation Metrics Report which measures the changes in commercialisation activities between 2005 and 2007. It appears that specific BCE CPD initiatives are beginning to appear: the KCA has an event programme and has recently delivered its 2009 Masterclass and has signed memoranda of understanding with both ASTP and Unico. It appears that only in the UK do we find “Business” and “Community” bound together as part of the same outreach initiative and that other countries see the commercialisation of technology as a specific activity in its own right and thereby perhaps avoid some of the terminological confusion (and confusion of roles) reported by our consultees.


6

4 The Workshop – Coming to Terms with Terms The purpose of the workshop was to establish the issues affecting BCE practitioners and attempt to define the scope encompassed by the term BCE – activities, individuals and relationships – and to see what problems and obstacles BCE practitioners might most commonly face. The programme for the day had been outlined to potential attendees by means of a workshop flyer whose contents is to be found in Section B.1. The nineteen attending included both “direct” BCE practitioners and those supporting them, reporting the following job titles:

• Acting Director of Library Services • Archives & Museums Manager • Brokerage Team Leader • Business Development • Business Information Officer • Business School Manager • Director • Director/Construction Knowledge Exchange • Director ISS • Director of Teaching and Learning Innovation • Director of Work Based Learning Programme • Embedding Service Learning • Head of ICT • Head of Library Services • Head of Postgraduate Research Office • Knowledge Management Specialist • Manager Research Enterprise Office • Project Manager • Senior Lecturer, Educational Development

When asked to self-identify (show of hands), approximately 50% of attendees believed they were active BCE practitioners.

4.1 What is the scope of BCE? The initial phase of the workshop was concerned with identifying exactly what is meant by the terms “Business and Community Engagement” and “BCE Practitioner”.

4.1.1 Types of BCE activity Participants were asked to give examples of activity within their own institutions they considered might fall within the scope of BCE. Answers included:

• Support services o Library access o Information resources for business and community o IT services o E-resources o Marketing


7

o Legal Services o Estates, Finances and HR

• Widening participation • Continuing education • Workforce development/ Executive Development • Community development • College partnerships • Work placement/placement learning • Short courses • Business incubation • Consultancy • Social enterprise

Overall, there were considered to be few areas of an institution which might not from some part of BCE activity or whose participation would not be a necessary component of BCE success.

4.1.2 BCE individuals and roles Participants were asked to identify roles within their institutions that might include BCE activity. Examples of responses included:

• Academics • Alumni • Archivists • Benefactors • Business development managers • Fund raisers • Library staff • Marketing staff • Postgraduates • Reception/security staff • Researchers • Students

Again, this represents a wide cross-section of institutional life and extends far beyond the traditional business development department.

4.1.3 BCE relationships Participants were also asked to identify the types of people and organisations with whom they might deal in the course of BCE activities. Answers included:

• Knowledge Transfer Partnerships • Business Links • KT Fellows • Academics tasked with KT activity


8

• Employers (both large and small) • Public sector (NHS, Regional Development Agencies, …) • Alumni groups • Schools • Voluntary groups

The list is wide-ranging and acknowledged to be incomplete but demonstrates that the range of groups involved with BCE cannot easily be circumscribed.

4.1.4 Relationship to other studies In a 2005 paperi on what was then described as the “third stream”, Sachi Hatakenaka writes:

At the beginning, the ‘third stream’ was simply defined as anything other than universities’ core businesses of teaching and research; that made sense because most institutions focussed on the objective of promoting new functions such as technology licensing or spinouts. However, as institutions delve further into these activities, it has become clear that most third stream activities have (and should have) strong linkages with teaching and/or research, and that it is important to emphasize synergy and integration sooner rather than later. The issue is gradually shifting from how to start such new activities to how best to nest or embed them within the university culture so that they become sustained.

Even at the time this review of “third stream” activity took place, there was a broad range of views within institutions as to what the term meant, the interpretation depending on the extent to which those institutions had begun to delve further. Although the terminology change via “Knowledge Transfer” to “Business and Community Engagement” is widely accepted amongst the more senior staff who participated in telephone interviews (see Section 6.2), the wide-ranging responses to the invitation to characterise BCE suggest that the terminology is not yet firmly established. It is also unclear whether BCE is a new and separate activity becoming embedded within institutional activity, or an existing institutional activity being newly and separately recognised. This leads to confusion as to whether the Continuing Professional Development of BCE Practitioners, the primary focus of this study, is part of the institution’s own staff development programme or a separate requirement. An Australian reportii uses different terminology, making the distinction between knowledge transfer for commercial benefit and knowledge transfer for other material, human, social or environmental benefit. On this distinction, it was plain that participants were almost wholly focussed on the commercial benefit aspect of knowledge transfer. The same report also makes a distinction between research and research-related knowledge transfer and teaching, the latter being excluded from its

i Development of third stream activity; lessons from international experience Sachi Hatakenaka, Higher Education Policy Institute, November 2005 ii Knowledge Transfer and Australian Universities and Publicly Funded Research Agencies A report to the Department of Education, Science and Training by PhillipsKPA Pty Ltd, March 2006


9

remit. Workshop participants were mostly from Higher Education and primarily viewed BCE as a research-related activityi.

4.1.5 Importance of neutral terminology A key finding from this activity is that BCE is multi-faceted and not easy to characterise; significant comments included:

• [BCE is] not driven by title, job role or status • Map services/content in a way that is TASK oriented not job role or dept/title • A lot of skills such as networking, entrepreneurship etc mean very different

things to community groups • Interpretation of what the skills mean [is] an issue • The sheer range of BCE activities … is much broader than the business

focussed activities in my own institution. There was a general view expressed that while BCE practitioners might be undertaking similar activities (is it "all about relationship management?"), those activities would be the responsibility of different roles in different institutions - and be directed towards different goals. Even the terminology (for example, whether Knowledge Transfer includes teaching) evades precision. Consequently, the training support package should be directed to means not ends and use neutral terminology, or clear explanations of terms so that there is no misunderstanding of its purpose and target.

4.2 Obstacles to BCE To assess the areas in which support might be of most use, participants were asked to identify what they considered significant obstacles to BCE in their institution.

4.2.1 Relationship management There seems to be an ongoing battle for ownership of the relationship between the institution and its business partners/clients. One recurring theme was the dichotomy between the personal relationship with an individual academic or team and the relationship with the institution as a whole. Comments included:

• Often academics … are business “sole traders” • Relationships are often at individual levels • Where an individual has had a long standing relationship the institution is

asking them to change the basis of the relationship – a lot of staff are uncomfortable with this

• Academics are Gypsies • Need for succession planning – sustaining relationships

Another was a lack of clarity at a higher level over responsibility for BCE. Participants reported:

i Our wider online survey suggested that this was generally representative of the HE sector, while the FE sector primarily, though not exclusively, viewed BCE as a teaching activity.


10

• Lack of communication – someone from institution went to company the day before but you didn’t know about it

• High fragmentation within organisation if across organisations within discipline

• University X has a perception that the business school is where all outward facing relationships should be formed – excluding the rest of the institution

It should be noted that although these issues are perceived as problems by the workshop participants, they are not necessarily obstacles to BCE itself, but obstacles to the management and further exploitation of BCE contacts by those who have been given a responsibility to promote or support BCE activities. There was an apparently-unquestioned assumption that the pursuit of knowledge transfer for commercial benefit is essentially a revenue-generating activity for the institution and should be managed and marketed using traditional commercial means. Only one comment suggested that there:

• Needs to be 2 way exchange with community or business

4.2.2 Measurement and reporting One of the issues affecting individual staff development is the extent to which their contribution to the institution can be measured. With academic staff, the recent practice has been to use a metric based on publication and citation which is not generally applicable to BCE activities. Although this study is focussed on staff development, it is equally important for institutions to be able to measure the “benefit” (commercial or otherwise) returned by their BCE investment. Many participants commented that metrics were hard to define adequately:

• How does HEI manage, collate and reference this information (bean counting – input for funding etc

• Metrics – bean counting – can cost dearly if not done properly • Current reporting systems don’t account for modern communication (e.g.

library/museum footfall and virtual visitors don’t count) • Requirement for staff to respond with metrics quite new – not what we asked

people to do when they signed up • Measurement – hidden innovation (small changes - can’t measure) • Value for money concept – move from quantitative to qualitative measures –

funding councils are reluctant to take qualitative measures • How can you measure performance in BCE? • Measure impact / results of qualitative nature vs. income generating

One consequence of poor metrics is that staff may be reluctant to participate in BCE if they feel their career development may be impaired by a failure to adequately measure or recognise their contribution.

4.2.3 Academic staff Although BCE has traditionally occurred in an uncoordinated fashion, mostly involving individual staff members and teams, there were several comments


11

suggesting that academic staff might be the problem, not the solution to widening BCE:

• Academics didn’t go into job to work into a team – need to get them working in a team way to meet the needs of industry

• Many staff contracts will not include BCE so legally they may not have to become involved

• Persuade academics to give away IPR! • Still very much academia focused … academics are not businessmen! • People are reluctant to change and adapt to what is required of them

It was not clear, however, whether any perceived reluctance to participate reflected a rejection of BCE itself, or unhappiness with the BCE agenda of specific institutions. One comment, though, suggested engaging more positively with academic staff:

• Institutions need to see the academic as a client

4.2.4 Resources An oft-repeated complaint was that it proved difficult to access institutional resources for BCE projects. Both procedural issues (such as being able to provide access to institutions and their resources for third parties) and legal issues (e.g. licensing for software) were cited in comments such as:

• The use of resources is a major issue • We are not going to realistically change licenses • Need a more robust structure for access management (but resource intensive) • Who is a ‘bona fide’ researcher?

Although individual institutions seem to be dealing with these issues on a case-by-case basis, there seems to be a lack of shared knowledge of successful strategies.

4.2.5 Organisation The structures of institutions themselves (or at least of the HEIs represented) were felt to have features which had a negative impact on BCE. Comments included:

• Agility is a key issue – as corporate [institutional] systems are not flexible • The culture of HE needs to be more flexible • HEIs (corporately) don’t know their full audiences or their capacity • Requirement of funding councils to respond structurally to research, teaching

and third stream – need for institutions to respond across all three rather than focus on one – institutions need organisational structures to support this

• People come to university from a divisional point of view rather than company point of view and don’t tell other divisions what they are doing. Divisions operate like SMEs

• Predominately undergraduate focus – huge part of institution given over to core business – BCE is inevitably different

Though other comments were more positive in nature:


12

• Many are doing BCE to some degree – but not aware they are • Celebrating internal KT and cultural shifts (e.g. 24/7 IT support) – raising

expectations

4.2.6 Relationship to other studies A report conducted for Worcester Business Schooli also asked focus groups about obstacles to BCE (specifically, Knowledge Transfer) and came to very similar conclusions. Among the academic barriers identified, several were reflected in comments made in this workshop:

• Lack of academic’s motivation to engage in KT • Lack of reward/incentives • Lack of training • Academic reluctance to give expertise away • Academic contract does not include KT

Similarly, several institutional barriers cited would be familiar to workshop participants:

• Unclear institutional/departmental KT process • Limited KT opportunities to certain disciplines • Differing strategic priorities for KT at different levels in the institution • Non-commercial culture of Universities

An obvious conclusion is that the barriers to BCE are deeply ingrained and have not significantly changed in the last two years.

4.3 Workshop conclusions One of the perhaps more unwelcoming conclusions of the workshop session was that, in the pursuit of Business and Community Engagement, institutions have not succeeded in fully engaging their own processes and staff – there is a lack of clarity about the nature of BCE and the identity of those responsible for delivering it and there are poorly-defined processes to support BCE and the staff tasked with its execution. The fact that similar conclusions were drawn in the Worcester Business School report of 2006 suggests that these problems are long-standing, ingrained and many are beyond the scope of our present project to address. However, there is clearly scope to ameliorate some of the identified problems my means of targeted training support. Looking specifically at the Continuing Professional Development needs of BCE practitioners that are within the scope of our project, we conclude from the workshop:

• There is a greater need for communication between academic staff and institutional management about their respective goals in BCE.

i Competencies and Continuing Processional Development (CPD) for Academics in Knowledge Exchange (KE) Activity Jan Francis-Smythe et al, Centre for People@Work, Worcester Business School, University of Worcester, November 2006


13

• We shoud engage with institutions to promote the recognition of the need for BCE CPD

• The term “BCE practitioner” encompasses many staff roles • The term “BCE” encompasses many diverse activities • We should provide training to support specific tasks that are widely applicable • We must be precise in our choice of terminology • We must clearly identify the benefit of the training support package in

addressing the problems of BCE practitioners • There is good practice but it is not necessarily shared


14

5 Analysis of Online Survey Results The results of the Workshop provided a basis for designing an online survey of BCE practitioners to establish their current CPD practice and their perceived needs. There were a total of 311 survey results. The results were categorised by institution and department type as follows:

Institution Type

Basis of Categorisation

Department Type

Basis of Categorisation

Higher Education

Self-reporting Academic Evidence from survey results that the response was from a department of an educational institution not primarily tasked with BCE

Further Education

Self-reporting BCE Evidence from survey results that the response was from a department of an educational institution primarily tasked with BCE

Other Not in any other category

Other Evidence that the survey result was from another type of institution or no evidence available.

The proportions of responses from each category can be visualised from the chart below:

Responses by Category

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

institution type department type

BCEAcademicOtherFEHE

Figure 1 - Analysis of response by respondent category

Of the respondents, 135 indicated that they were also involved in “advocacy” of BCE within their institution.

5.1 Perceived importance of BCE Respondents were asked to assess the level of importance attached to BCE in their institution and the results are summarised below:


15

Perceived BCE Importance

No response, 78

Extremely, 97

Quite, 111

Not Very, 25

Figure 2 - Perceived Importance of BCE

Although there was a much lower level of response from FE institutions than HE, the levels of importance attached to BCE in each sector are similar as can be seen from the percentage of each institution type being seen to view BCE as “quite” or “extremely” important:

Relative Importance of BCE in HE and FE

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

HE FE

Not importantQuite or Extremely

Figure 3 - Relative Importance of BCE to HE and FE

5.2 Collaboration with other institutions and staff exchange Respondents were asked whether they were involved in any services being provided in collaboration with an external partner or institution. Across all respondents the level of participation was high:


16

Participation in Collaboration

Paricipant, 248

Non-participant, 63

Figure 4 - Participation in Collaboration

Once again, the level of participation was roughly similar in the HE and FE field:

Collaboration by Sector

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

HE FE

Non-participantParticipant

Figure 5 - Collaboration by Sector

The types of external organisation varied considerably, with several mentions of regional partnerships such as Knowledge House, i10 and SETsquared, Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, Lifelong Learning Network and LearnDirect, the Regional Development Agencies (or national equivalents) and Business Links. Participants were asked to suggest any special skills they felt were necessary for their collaborative work. Although freeform answers were supplied, most were related to one or more of the following:


17

• Business skills – financial and legal, contracts and tendering • Project Management • Domain knowledge • Technology transfer (patents, licensing) • Interpersonal skills – communication/negotiation

Only 37 respondentsi indicated that they had taken part in staff exchanges or job swaps: two of these were in previous (non-academic) employment and several of the rest involved job shadowing within the same institution as part of a recruitment process or for a brief period. There was no significant input as to whether job swaps had led to identifiable extra skills.

5.3 Current professional development activities The survey attempted to assess the sources of professional development currently available to participants and the amount of use and value attaching.

5.3.1 Process Firstly, respondents were asked about the formality and quality of the process for professional development in their institution. A total of 226 respondents reported that their organisation had a “Structured” process for professional development; of these 152 reported that the process was well-managed with a further 38 feeling the process was at least adequately managed. Overall satisfaction with the management of professional development was therefore high. The methods for recording professional development achievements were surveyed, largely to ascertain the use of e-portfolios; there seems, however, to be relatively low penetration of such methods at present:

Recording Method for Professional Development

020406080

100120140160180200

Not Recorded Paper E-Portfolio Appraisal Other

Figure 6 - Methods for Recording Professional Development

i However, compare this response to Figure 8 where 65 people identify “Staff Exchange” as a method of CPD they have used: this may reflect some ambiguity in the phrasing of the two related questions.


18

5.3.2 Motivation Respondents were asked about their motivation for undertaking professional development activities in order to determine the balance of personal and organisational goals. Using a simple “yes/no” to indicate a particular source of motivation, the total responses were:

Motivation for Professional Development

0

50

100

150

200

250

Prospects Interest PersonalDevelopment

Financial Service

Figure 7 - Motivating Factors for Professional Development

Overall, factors which were positive for the organisation (service improvement, skills enhancement) significantly outweighed purely personal interests (such as remuneration). Although respondents were given the opportunity to identify other motivations, no significant responses were received. In response to the question “What would motivate you to develop your skills in using technology?”, the freeform answers fell mainly into the following categories:

Potential motivating factor Responses Utility – the potential usefulness of the technology to the respondents’ job or business

66

Development of personal skills or career 37 The availability of time 27

The opportunity to increase the quality of service delivered

11

Personal interest 7

5.3.3 Source and methods of CPD In an attempt to assess the types of CPD activity currently undertaken - and their relative frequency – respondents were asked to rate the frequency (number of times per year) they engaged with a number of potential sources of CPD and the different methods employed. The total number of responses indicating the use of an identified CPD method were counted to give an estimate of the relative frequency of use of each potential method:


19

CPD Method (Relative Frequency)

Face to Face Training, 247

Face to Face Conference,

236

Online Conference, 66

Online Networking, 265Online Courses,

88

Individual Research, 242

Team Expertise Sharing, 259

Mentoring/Coaching, 187

Staff Exchange, 65

Figure 8 - CPD Method (Relative Frequency)

As can be seen in Figure 8, informal methods (team expertise sharing, online networking and individual research) each occur with similar frequency to formal face-to-face training; online training is uncommon and staff exchange is little-used as a means of CPD. A similar count of the sources of current CPD activity is shown in Figure 9 – a high proportion of respondents make use of institutional resources (staff development, library and computing services), there is some use of sector organisations (AURIL, Praxis), but the relative use of JISC services is low. Of the 88 responses citing use of JISC services, 56 specific JISC events or resources were identified, though with no discernible pattern. Looking only at respondents who indicated positively that they employed a method or source of CPD at least once per year, an average was computed by sector of the number of times per year that each method or source was engaged. The number of times per year each CPD method is employed in estimated in Figure 10. Although there is some variation between sectors, there is a clear preponderance of informal activity (team expertise sharing and individual research). A similar analysis of the number of times per year a CPD source is employed in shown in Figure 11.


20

CPD Source (Relative Frequency)

AURIL, 88

Praxis, 108

Institution KT, 155

Institution Staff Development,

197

Library, 147

IT/Computing Service, 171

Disability Unit, 56

Learning Technology

Unit, 82

Jisc Service, 88

Figure 9 - CPD Source (Relative Frequency)

CPD Method Frequency (Positive Response)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Face t

o Fac

e Trai

ning

Face t

o Fac

e Con

feren

ce

Online

Con

feren

ce

Online

Netw

orking

Online

Cou

rses

Indivi

dual

Resea

rch

Team E

xpert

ise S

harin

g

Mentor

ing/C

oach

ing

Staff E

xcha

nge

Even

ts p

er y

ear

FEHEOther

Figure 10 - CPD Method (Events per year)


21

CPD Source (Relative Frequency)

AURIL, 88

Praxis, 108

Institution KT, 155

Institution Staff Development,

197

Library, 147

IT/Computing Service, 171

Disability Unit, 56

Learning Technology

Unit, 82

Jisc Service, 88

Figure 11 - CPD Source (Events per year)

Individuals also noted the following other sources of CPD in their organisation, though the total number of responses was small:

CPD Source Responses Face to face networks 8 Peer support 4 Learning by doing 4 Coaching/Supervision 3 Dialogue with partners 3 Much broader mix of technology enabled interactions 1 Business to Business relationship 1 Coaching 1

When asked the method of CPD seen as most valuable, significantly more responses were provided, with those involving face-to-face contact with trainers, colleagues and other practitioners being mentioned most often.

Most Valuable CPD Method Responses Face-to-face training/seminars 93 Sharing information will colleagues, other practitioners 76 Coaching / mentoring 22 Self 14 On-the-job training/shadowing 8

5.3.4 Effectiveness and satisfaction The survey looked specifically at satisfaction with the following potential sources of professional development within institutions by asking respondents to rate the extent to which the following met their development needs:

• Staff development programmes • Library service


22

• Computer service / IT department • Academic development programmes • Disability Unit • Learning Technology Unit

Effectiveness of Development Source

Staff D

evelo

pmen

t

Librar

y

IT/Com

putin

g

Acade

mic Dev

elopm

ent

Disabil

ity U

nit

Learn

ing Tec

hnolo

gy

Does Not Meet NeedsPartially Meets NeedsFully Meets Needs

Figure 12 - Effectiveness of Professional Development

At first sight (Figure 12: the figures are scaled to 100%) there is a high level of satisfaction with the services provided. However, the chart in Figure 12 includes only those who actively chose to assign a rating. If those giving no response (or indicating “not applicable”) are included in the chart, the picture changes significantly. As Figure 13 shows, most of the institutional sources of potential CPD are seen as irrelevant or only partly meeting respondents’ needs.

Effectiveness (including N/A)

Staff Dev

elopm

ent

Librar

y

IT/Com

putin

g

Academ

ic Dev

elopment

Disabil

ity U

nit

Learn

ing Tech

nology

Not ApplicableDoes Not Meet NeedsPartially Meets NeedsFully Meets Needs

Figure 13 - Relevance of Development Source


23

5.4 Training subject needs Participants were asked whether they would in principle be interested in training in a variety of nominated subject areas. The frequency of interest in each subject area is represented in the following chart:

Relative Subject Interest

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Web Diss

emina

tion

Web Dev

elopm

ent

E-Learn

ing

Inform

ation

Search

Imag

es

Audio/

Video

Acces

sibility

Con

tent

Equali

ty Stra

tegy

Mobile

Device

s

Custom

isable

Con

tent

Access

ibility

ROI

Procure

ment

Curricu

lum Dev

elopm

ent

Inform

ation

Strateg

y

Tech

nical

Lega

l

IPR Lega

l

Inform

ation

Man

agem

ent

Figure 14 - Relative Interest in Training Topics

Interest in training topics was wide-ranging with no clear focus. Respondents were asked to identify particular subjects of interest more specifically. Of the relatively small number of responses, the most frequently requested issues to cover were:

Issue Responses Data protection, FOI & copyright 4 Online marketing/communication 2 Best practice 2 E-learning 2 Management Skills 2 Engagement tools 2 Group communication/collaboration tools 2 Building knowledge networks 1 Information management 1 Business awareness 1 Customer Relationship Management 1 Open Source exploitation 1 Effective use of voice/video recording for evidence gathering

1

IT skills 1


24

5.5 Training delivery needs Respondents were also asked what delivery mechanisms they preferred for training. There was no clear preference in terms of training deliver, though printed materials showcases and briefing papers were the least popular.

Preferred Training Delivery Methods

126

57

83

119150

141

73

Online CoursePrinted CourseBriefing PaperCase StudyWorkshopSeminarShowcase

Figure 15 - Training Delivery Preferences

5.6 Survey conclusions We can conclude from the survey responses that:

• There is a need for training in a wide variety of areas • BCE practitioners are motivated to seek training • BCE practitioners want training with clear and relevant benefits • Existing sources of CPD are not seen as adequate • There is an overlap between training needs and areas of JISC expertise • JISC does not have a high profile in the sector • There is a preference for face-to-face support in peer groups


25

6 Telephone Interviews The aim of the interviews was to supplement the survey data with qualitative data from a number of perspectives. The interviews were structured but informal to gather personal reflections based on experience in the field rather than to compile formal case studies or attribute comments to individuals. Aspects of survey responses were targeted where it appeared that there was a specific example or experience. Open questioning was used with interviewees, to extract a description of the BCE or CPD activity, any tools used and their personal views on skills gaps and types of support needed.

6.1 Interview profiles From the total of 311 responses to the survey over 250 were approached for a follow up interview over a number of weeks. Despite many survey respondents coming from the FE sector it proved very difficult to get many from this sector to take part in a follow up interview. A total of 28 telephone interviews were conducted over a period of 7 weeks. A wide range of personnel were canvassed for their views ranging from:

• Business, Regional or Economic Affairs Director • Business Development Director/Manager • Contracts Manager • Enterprise and KT Development Managers • Knowledge and Technology Transfer Manager/Leader; • Project Manager • Head of Business Relations • Operations manager

The main areas of work interviewees are engaged in range across:

• Consultancy • CPD • Employer Engagement • Intellectual Property • Knowledge Transfer • Outreach Consultancy • Research funding • Research policy • Technology Transfer

6.2 Terminology The term Business and Community Engagement (BCE) and what it refers to is clear and well understood by most of those spoken to in HE and most are comfortable with the term and its use. The feeling was that “it says what it is” - so why complicate things and that it was far better than the sometimes complex terminology that HEFCE uses around bidding processes.


26

A number of respondents, though, highlighted the difference between Business Engagement and Community Engagement - the former being for commercial purposes and the latter about community projects and collaboration not necessarily for profit. However, there was an acknowledgement that many community partners (e.g. charities, the arts etc.) were in reality micro-businesses: although many of those involved do not recognise this leading to a lack of awareness of the need for skills in this area. There was less certainty that business/commerce would use or understand the term BCE, which might mean potential ambiguity between the two sectors, particularly since there is a mix of ways in which engagement happens – research partnerships, company start ups and spin offs, buying services, etc. Mutuality between the two sectors was not perfect with a need to find common ground and commonly defined terminology.

6.3 JISC role JISC initiatives in this area are less well known about indicating a possible need for more awareness-raising. There was a perception among several respondents working in the area of BCE that “JISC only does IT related stuff”. Suggestions for improving the perception of JISC’s role included:

• Adopt less of a blanket approach, more targeted to specialist areas (e.g. if involved in knowledge transfer would be interested in hearing about initiatives in this area but not others);

• Less inward focus, more outward facing; • JISC could perhaps arrange initiatives in specialist areas for a more focused

approach at times, maybe focus groups?

6.4 CPD in BCE

6.4.1 Current practice As outlined above, most of the interviews were carried out with those in mid to high ranking positions and as such highly autonomous in their approach. At such levels CPD tends to be identified on an individual basis or where there is small team working either through training needs analysis or collaboratively and then acted upon. The interviews bear out the survey results that in general respondents were satisfied with the quality of institutional CPD support in a general sense but most of the support available was not seen as relevant to BCE staff due to the speciality of this area. There was some interest in CPD activities being recognised/authorised or accredited but this was not widespread. Most of the interviewees regularly attend AURIL and or Praxis events at least annually. Other notable providers in this area are Unico (http://www.unico.org.uk/) and the Institute of Knowledge Transfer.


27

Where recording of CPD is carried out, most is done on paper and there is general satisfaction with this. Alternative methods are through appraisals, PDR’s etc. On the question of using e-portfolios there was a clear split between positive interest and those concerned about the burden of yet another electronic recording system. This split in views seems to reflect seniority and longevity in a senior role - those with professional status find them not really applicable while those new to or in the early stages of their career would find them useful for building a professional portfolio and a useful tool for reflective practice etc. Staff exchange is not often practised as a mechanism for CPD for a variety of reasons:

• Time constraints militate against • Placement activity time consuming and difficult to implement • difficult to arrange/find cover for • Generally small teams operating in this area and often no suitable deputy to

cover if exchange to take place It was suggested that staff exchange brokerage, skills matching service or partnership service between business and institution (or institution and institution) might bring potential partners together but there exists a danger of such a scheme being artificial. One respondent expressed the view that “Universities don’t always want to engage with SME’s due to resource problems”.

6.4.2 Future requirements There was s strongly reflected focus on face to face events and training, almost all of those interviewed prefer face to face events and training over online events. Reasons given were:

• Value human contact – more opportunity to interact • Hidden benefits such as contacts, shared areas of expertise, interaction and

ideas exchange, enhance soft skills, debate around topics etc • Only go so far with technology based initiatives – often difficulty in mastering

online systems when there is such a proliferation of them – potential to overwhelm

• Meetings to raise awareness It was felt that a useful role for some events could be focused around the need to break down barriers between business and institutions, institutions and institutions and within institutions. The types of events most likely to be favoured are training workshops on a specific topic but other more fluid events with a seminar or conference feel and a mix of presenters are felt to be of high value (along the lines of the ones for the JISC/HEA collaboration programme). There was a feeling that the sector was already well served by HE focused events from the likes of AURIL and Praxis, and there is some feeling that many of these events are often heavily focused on HE which often means they are somewhat inward looking.


28

To balance this, a range of events with an HE/FE focus with input from the business world (speakers/participants in this area) allied to the inverse – business-focused events with input from HE practitioners - would be well received. This would help to break down barriers and expand contacts, as expressed by one response:

“To drive knowledge transfer forward you need to engage both academic and business sectors, one without the other will not provide the requisite outcomes”

Online resources suggested as potentially useful included:

• Case studies of best practice • This could be supplemented with a newsletter/journal • Social networking sites/activities – need to find a balance but possibility to

exploit the sheer reach of such technologies – potential for alliance between groups

• Use of technology to take forward outcomes of face-to-face events

6.5 CPD skills requirements Many events are focused around the ‘soft skills’ with less of the basic knowledge skill for those new to their roles in BCE. This knowledge was often lacking and good use of online learning could fill this gap. Specific skills that were mentioned as useful topics for training and support were:

• IPR • Legal • KT • Communications and Marketing with specific web emphasis • Writing for and communicating with the media (press releases etc.)

6.6 Interview conclusions The interviews serve to confirm and underline some of the themes identified by our survey:

• There is a need for training in a wide variety of areas • There is an overlap between training needs and areas of JISC expertise • JISC does not have a high profile in the sector • There is a preference for face-to-face support in peer groups


29

7 Training Needs

7.1 Characteristics The training needs of BCE practitioners have characteristics which, though not unique, are especially pronounced in the BCE environment.

7.1.1 Multi-domain skills base One of the first characteristics of BCE identified in our workshop was the wide-ranging nature of skills required by practitioners. These encompass “soft” skills (communication, negotiation, teamwork), knowledge appropriate to the subject domain underlying the partner relationship, business awareness, financial skills and legal knowledge (particularly of contracts, licensing and patents). Although the JISC advisory services can provide support in some of these areas, many are outside the JISC remit and some are already well served by established organisations or are capable of being served by institutions’ own resources (business schools, law schools, etc). We must accept that it is neither possible nor even desirable for one organisation to deliver training support that encompasses all the possible skills and competencies that might be required by anyone identified as a “BCE practitioner”. We must also accept that the JISC is not going to be the destination of first resort for BCE CPD and work in a way that supports organisations that are prominent in the field.

7.1.2 Range of roles and responsibilities The term “BCE practitioner” covers a wide range of roles and responsibilities and includes not only staff directly engaged with external partners but those indirectly involved through institutional support of those staff. Even those on the “front line” have vastly different roles, ranging from business development through to service delivery. Each institution characterises its BCE staff in different ways and places different emphasis on its relationships with external partners. It is consequently impossible to infer the likely training needs of a BCE practitioner from a job title or even job description. Taken together with the wide range of skills for which training may be required, this creates a problem both for the BCE practitioner and host institution to identify potentially-relevant CPD resources and tailor CPD provision to the needs of a particular individual and role. There seems to be a need to identify training support that may be available from a number of different sources – a great deal of which may not explicitly be targeted at the BCE practitioner – and a need for assistance in selecting the training support that may be most appropriate to current personal and role needs.

7.1.3 Practicality In addition to concerns about the relevance of CPD available from within their institutions, a significant number of those questioned felt constrained in their ability to take advantage of training opportunities as a result of time or funding pressure. It was frequently reported that the most significant source of training was “doing the job”.


30

We suspect, but have inadequate data to confirm, that one of the factors motivating the preference for workshop/seminar-based training was the expectation of being temporarily free of the competing demands of the workplace which might otherwise interrupt online training or private study. Concerns were also expressed about the separation of BCE-related CPD from the normal CPD process which takes place in institutions for all other employee activities. Training must be delivered in such a way that it can feasibly be accessed by time-pressed BCE practitioners and be capable of integration with other CPD which may take place in the home institution.

7.2 Identification We have already concluded that it is necessary to identify the skills and competencies associated with BCE practitioners in a language-neutral manner so that the terminology employed in a specific role or institution does not obscure their more general applicability. Fortunately, a lot of work has already been done in this area and AURIL have developed an extremely comprehensive Continuing Development Framework for Knowledge Transfer Practitioners, which we have already commented has been seen to have general applicability to Knowledge Transfer activity across Europe. This identifies key roles and breaks them down into Units, Elements and Key Skills. Although specifically targeted at Knowledge Transfer related to research, most of the key roles and associated skills (such as managing information and communications) are equally applicable to teaching/training partnerships and community activities. Having identified skills and competencies to several levels of detail, the AURIL framework goes on to provide a diagnostic tool by which individuals can assess the skills and competencies in which they may need to receive further support in their current role. The onus is then, of course, on the BCE practitioner and/or host institution to then identify training support which develops those skills and competencies. An ongoing exercise (as yet unpublished) by JISC infoNet staff has identified approximately 800 existing resources of various types (from factsheets to workshops) produced by the JISC Advisory Services which have potential applicability to BCE practitioners (and which certainly cover the topics shown in Figure 14), though they may not have been conceived with BCE practitioners in mind. These, however, are not categorised in any way that maps to the AURIL framework and so are unlikely to be identified as of value to BCE practitioners making use of the AURIL diagnostic tool: this problem is not, of course, specific to JISC resources. Although the AURIL framework takes us a long way down the road to identifying training needs, there is still a gap between the output of the diagnostic tool and the identification of appropriate training resources. Some concern has been expressed that the AURIL framework is focussed on Knowledge Transfer and is less generally applicable to other aspects of BCE such as


31

Employer Engagement. An exercise has begun to review the AURIL framework, taking into account practical experience of its use and some of the comments made. Whilst this process is underway, other formal skills frameworks (such as the Higher Education Academy’s UK Professional Standards Framework and the AUA’s CPD Framework), can be used where appropriate to ensure inclusion of all the main BCE sectors.

7.3 Conclusion There are robust pre-existing frameworks for describing the key skills and competencies of BCE practitioners and there exist training and support resources from the JISC Advisory Services but also from a wide variety of other sources that may be directly relevant to their needs. Whereas there is obvious benefit in more specifically tailoring these resources to the BCE environment (for example in the “materials refresh” process presently been undertaken within the JISC Advisory Services), there is a more fundamental problem in highlighting the relevance of individual resources to the plethora of individual requirements that exist. BCE practitioners look first to organisations such as AURIL, IKT and Praxis and it will be necessary to work with those organisations not only to reach the target audience but to gain their respect and attention. We should take advantage of their considerable experience and build on the work they have done to date. We conclude that the most significant need, given the wide scope of BCE activities, is to bridge the gap that exists between the diagnostic process that identifies the areas in which training support may be required and the discovery of available training resources. Clearly this cannot be a static exercise and should lead to a sustainable mechanism to enable training needs to be matched to training resources as both needs and resources evolve. Equally, it cannot be a standalone exercise – there has to be involvement from organisations supporting BCE, training providers and the employers of BCE practitioners. We believe that this need can be met by building on the developing AURIL framework, further work to map existing resources to that framework and the implementation of an online version of the AURIL diagnostic tool incorporating signposting to applicable training resources. Further details of this proposal, which builds on previous work in the field by the BCE community and by the JISC Advisory Services, will form the basis of the Phase 3 planning for this project. We will clearly need to work with representative stakeholders across the BCE field to ensure that the diagnostic tool has general applicability and engage with the CPD process within institutions to encourage the adoption of project results.

Annex A – CPD Survey Questions

32

A CPD Survey Questions The survey questions are listed below. The questionnaire was completed online using a combination of multiple-choice answers and free-form input.

A.1.1 Your development

• Which methods of professional and skills development do you use most frequently? o Face to face training courses o Face to face conferences o Online networks o Online courses o Online conferences o Individual research o Sharing expertise within your team o Mentoring or coaching o Staff exchange / job swap o Other (please state)

• Which methods do you find most valuable?

• How often do you attend events or use training resources from any of the following?

o AURIL o Praxis o Institutional business development/knowledge transfer unit o Institutional staff development o Library o IT or computing services o Academic development / quality units o Disability Units o Learning Technology Units o JISC Services or JISC related activities o If you have attended JISC events or used resources please describe them

• How do you record your professional development activities?

o Activities are not recorded o Paper o E-Portfolio o As part of Professional Development Reviews / appraisal processes o Other

• What is your motivation for development activities? [checkbox]

o Improve job prospects o Make job more interesting o Personal development o Salary increase / regrade o Improve service to customers o Other (please state)

• What would encourage you to develop your skills in using technology?

• Do you follow a structured Professional Development Review or Appraisal process?

o If yes, is the process well managed? o If no, would you like a review or appraisal process?


33

A.1.2 Your institution

• Within your institution, do you receive any support in developing your skills from any of the following:

o Staff development o The library o IT or Computing Services o Academic development/quality units o Disability Units o Learning Technology Units o Other (please state)

• Does the provision meet your needs?

(Answer Fully/Partially/Not at all/Not applicable for each of the above).

• Have you ever taken part in staff exchange or job swaps? o If yes, what did this involve? o What extra skills did you learn?

• How important do you feel business and community engagement activities are within your

institution?

• Are you involved in advocacy activities related to business and community engagement within your institution?

o If yes, please give details.

A.1.3 Working with other institutions

• Are you involved in any services being provided in collaboration with another institution? o If yes, please give details.

• Do you feel any special skills are required for this work? Please describe

• How did you acquire these skills?

A.1.4 Future development

• Which of the following topics would you be interested in? [please rate] o Using the web to disseminate your activities and for collaboration o Web site development o Creating and delivering e-learning o Finding information more effectively o Creating and using images o Creating and using video/audio content o Improving the accessibility of your resources o Strategic implications of Equality and Diversity policies o Using mobile and portable technologies o Using technologies to deliver customisable content o Ensuring that accessible technologies and content give return on investment o Online Procurement advice/support o Curriculum design / delivery o Strategic management of information o Legal implications of using technology o Legal issues relating to use of information o Managing information more effectively


34

• Please give details of any specific issues you would like to know about relating to the above topics:

• How would you prefer to learn about these topics (by topic): o Online resources which you could work through yourself o Printed resources enhanced with further resources on CD/DVD o Briefing papers available online o Case studies/best practice available online o Face-to-face workshops. o Seminars with others in the sector o Showcase events to disseminate best practice o Other (please state)

A.1.5 About you

• Name, Job title, Institution, responsible for numbers of staff

• What type of department/service/unit do you work for? o Academic department/school o Administration/support service (eg library, ICT, careers, registrars etc) o Knowledge Transfer Partnership o Business Development o Outreach/community engagement o Continuing education/lifelong learning o Employer engagement o Commercial sector o Non-HEI public sector

• Please indicate the type of business and community engagement activity with which you are

mainly involved: o Knowledge exchange/transfer o Business startup/incubation o Product development o Work-based learning o CPD for external employees o Science/research communication o Public/community engagement o Cultural activities o Student placements/volunteering o Foundation degree o Other (please state)

Annex B – Consultation Workshop Details

35

B Consultation Workshop Programme The workshop was advertised to participants using a flyer whose text is shown in the section B.1.

B.1 Workshop Flyer

This consultation workshop explores the service provision, management and support offered to BCE practitioners within institutions, with particular focus on the top concerns and potential barriers facing the internal institutional services.

Business and Community Engagement (BCE) is now forming an increasingly important part of many UK HE and FE institutional strategies. As institutions take on a more significant role in innovation and skills development through external partnerships, so specialist staff become more involved in knowledge transfer and business and community engagement activities.

Supporting the needs of these BCE practitioners and delivering a BCE focused institutional strategy can present new challenges for existing internal services, which are often primarily geared up to underpin teaching and research. The outcomes of the consultation will contribute to two projects that will be providing BCE awareness and education to the HE and FE institutional support community and providing a framework for supporting the training and development needs of BCE practitioners.

Both projects form part of JISC's Business and Community Engagement programme, which is designed to support HE and FE education institutions to develop their engagement role with external business and community partners and clients.

B.1.1 Topics:

• What is BCE and how are the JISC involved? • What is a BCE practitioner? • How do we currently support them? • Is BCE support different? • Can we meet the demands of BCE activity with our institution? • How might BCE support change what we do? • What are our top concerns and issues regarding the provision of BCE support? • What skills and training do we/they need?

B.1.2 Who is it for?

Anyone involved in supporting the needs of BCE practitioners within institutions, including IT services, staff development, libraries, human resources and administration.

cpd provision and training needs for bce practitioners · 2018-06-18 · cpd provision and training...

Documents