1

Institutional Approaches to Curriculum Design

Institutional Story Template

Project Information

Project Title (and acronym) UG-FLEX

Start Date September 2008 End Date July 2012

Lead Institution University of Greenwich

Partner Institutions

Project Director Paul Butler (formerly Maureen Castens)

Project Manager & contact

details

Claire Eustance

Email: c.eustance@gre.ac.uk Tel 020 8331 8918

Project website www.gre.ac.uk/ils/ugflex

Project blog/Twitter ID www,ugflex.blogspot.com / ugflexproject

Design Studio home page http://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/page/29224826/UG-

Flex%20project

Programme Name Institutional Approaches to Curriculum Design

Programme Manager Sarah Knight

2

0. Summary

The UG-Flex project has delivered played a significant role in developing a more complete understanding of

the concept and consequences of curriculum flexibility and the impact on processes and digital systems. It

has also delivered significant enhancements to the management of information at the University of

Greenwich. This new understanding as well as the enhancements to processes and systems are being used

effectively by academic managers, academic and support office administrators as well as staff development

practitioners and senior managers to improve the student experience, for those who undertake flexible

study and well as for the wider student body as a whole.

There is a greater recognition among the project stakeholders across the university of the potential benefits

that flow from taking a more holistic, joined up and collaborative approach to information management in

relation to curriculum design and delivery.

The project approach has relied on detailed business analysis of stakeholder requirements that have been

identified using a range of stakeholder engagement techniques, including most successfully: Rich Pictures,

World Cafes and Nominal Group Technique.

The project’s work has resulted in greater clarity in relation to institutional policy on the scope of “flexibility”

in curriculum design, namely that flexibility is not synonymous with curriculum proliferation, that it is easy to

demand but hard to deliver, and is highly complex with far reaching implication for all areas of university

business.

A primary driver for the project at the outset was a belief that the university’s systems and processes were

acting as a constraint to the development of a more flexible curriculum. Over the course of the project this

view has changed and where initially “the systems” were seen as the barrier to flexibility it is now

understood that the IT systems environment is merely one part of the wider institutional “eco system”. A

complete the picture also requires a clear academic rationale and consideration of academic practice,

resources as well as an organisational culture and mind-set that embraces dialogue, continuous

improvement and shared purpose.

The UG-Flex project has had a significant impact on attitudes and practice that will be sustained after the

project’s lifetime. Stakeholders, who have been adopters and champions, while representing a relatively

small proportion of staff albeit from a wide variety of roles – academic, strategy, information, professional

services - have raised expectations around information systems and management of curriculum information

and data and there is now a momentum for continuous improvement.

3

1. What are the headline achievements of your project

The project has played a significant role in developing a more complete understanding of the concept and

consequences of curriculum flexibility. (See video clip for stakeholder comments on “the complexity of

flexibility”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=761k8MyfK_A)

Change management techniques, notably innovative stakeholder engagement strategies have been

successfully deployed to support academics, administrators and information professionals to articulate their

requirements for the management of the curriculum. This has in turn resulted in greater clarity in relation to

institutional policy on the scope of “flexibility” in curriculum design and led in May 2012 to the endorsement

of a proposal to implement a new “year round” academic calendar and framework in order to better

accommodate existing curriculum models and to offer new scope for diversification if appropriate in the

future.

The UG-Flex project has made a series of bespoke changes to its proprietary student records system

(Elusian/Sungard’s Banner product) that have added additional granularity to programme and course

information and made this available to all users. These enhancements provide the scope for more effective

management of curriculum-related information within digital systems at the University of Greenwich and are

already being used by academic managers, academic and support office administrators as well as staff

development practitioners and senior managers who may be termed “adopters” in that they have

recognised the value of using data and digital information to improve the student experience, particularly for

those who undertake flexible study.1

The project has contributed to making staff at the university more receptive to digital information -

illustrated by numerous instances where staff have discovered existing functionality on the university portal

and VLE and have attributed what they see as ‘new’ functions to the UG-Flex project!

Admittedly, sceptics remain and there is still some way to go to achieve a wholesale shift in attitudes

amongst staff in recognising the full opportunities afforded by corporate digital information systems. This

said, as a result of the project’s work considerable progress at the University of Greenwich in developing a

cross-institution collaborative approach to information literacy training and it is envisaged that this will

increase uptake over time.

There is a greater recognition among the project stakeholders across the university of the potential benefits

that flow from taking a more holistic, joined up and collaborative approach to information management in

relation curriculum design and delivery as evidenced in the decision by the university to adopt the XCRI-CAP

standard in2011.

The project has raised expectations among the different communities and interest group across the

institution on the management of data and information.. According to one Head of Department, “…there is a

snowball rolling that we never had before….We have actually got this idea of continuous improvement built

1 Flexible study is defined by the UG-Flex project as any programme of study that runs outside of the September – July,

Mon-Friday, 9am – 9pm schedule.

4

into the process…people are now expecting changes….looking for changes where they weren’t before.”

(2012) (Click on link for video clip of this comment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj0ahUKvDSI)

From an information systems perspective, the project’s major achievement has been the greater emphasis

that is now placed on the requirement for effective processes in relation to curriculum design, and the

recognition of stakeholders of the pivotal role clear, transparent and enforceable processes play in running

effective systems.

2. What were the key drivers for undertaking the project?

The primary driver for the project at the outset was an aspiration to develop more flexible, accessible and

vocationally relevant programmes. This vision was at the heart of the University of Greenwich’s mission and

was outlined in the University of Greenwich 2006-2011 Corporate Plan.

In 2006 the University convened a working group to review current and potential arrangements for part time

and flexible provision. This culminated in a series of recommendation, endorsed by the University’s

Academic Council in 2007 that aimed to deliver a more varied curriculum to facilitate greater variations in

the pace of study and provide a wider range of credit-rated short courses. As these recommendations began

to take shape it became apparent that the University’s systems and business processes needed overhauling

to ensure that they could respond at optimum efficiency and effectiveness to greater flexibility in

curriculum.

By the time the UG-Flex project got underway in late 2008/09, there was a widely held belief that the

university did not have the infrastructure to support flexible teaching and learning and in schools. It quickly

became clear that the challenges the project needed to tackle were not restricted to one area. In general,

levels of student and staff satisfaction with the systems that managed information and data were low:

There was long standing dissatisfaction that the student records systems that had been introduced in 1997

had been designed without sufficient academic input and criticism of the level of errors and manual

corrections and adjustments that were necessary.

This level of dissatisfaction internally was set against a context where the University of Greenwich was

regarded externally as having significant strengths in relation to digital systems and information

management – it’s staff & student Portal was shortlisted for Times Higher award in 2009. And yet, the

opinion held generally across Greenwich’s 10 semi-autonomous schools/institutes was that they made the

student records system “work as best they could”. At the same time staff based in central services –

notably information services and systems faced significant challenges since the devolved model over time

resulted in a proliferation of school-specific processes and massive inconsistencies. School-based shadow IT -

referred to by some as “feral systems” were the norm rather than the exception – a situation that was tacitly

accepted by many as part and parcel of the highly devolved organisational model.

In contrast, a positive driver for the project was the knowledge that it was possible to deliver a significantly

improved student and staff experience through process improvement. In 2009 Greenwich became the first

HEI in the UK to move towards paperless admissions – an initiative spearheaded by Information Services

5

and Student Affairs who succeeded in getting all of the semi-autonomous schools to agree a common

admissions process. (An initiative also shortlisted for a THES award [in 2012]).

While UG-FLEX was informed at the outset by clear drivers, the project over its lifetime has at times faced

encountered challenges in realising the opportunities they afforded. Given the relatively long duration of

the project, it is not particularly surprising that institutional and external policy on flexibility has changed

over the project’s lifetime. Whereas the project had commenced on the premise that a more flexible

curriculum was the overarching goal as well as being an institutional priority, evidence from stakeholder

consultation, followed swiftly by a change in senior management, exposed inconsistencies in how this

priority was interpreted across the institution and also in where it sat as a strategic priority. The evidence of

changing patterns of demand away from part time study, outcomes of the Browne review and the shift in

Government policy did little to ameliorate Greenwich’s apparent strategic ambivalence towards any

significant growth in the number of flexible courses it offered.

Consequently the strategic aspiration for more flexible curricula ebbed and flowed over the project’s

lifetime. The project responded by articulating a vision whereby there was a pragmatic acceptance that the

project’s success – impact – should not be measured or equated with growth in the levels of flexible

curriculum but in improvements that ensured that the experience of students on existing flexible

programmes was of the highest possible quality.

If anything the driver of improving the experience for students had been taken as given at the project outset,

it was not until mid-way through the project that it was recognised as the primary driver, specifically

addressing the poorer experience of students on flexible programmes in respect of management of their

study, their progression and their levels of success. Additionally, the project’s explicit focus on the student

experience was given added impetus by implementation of the “Greenwich Graduate” initiative mid-way

through the project’s lifecycle (Greenwich Graduate is the University’s adoption of a specific set of graduate

attributes that we expect our graduates to leave equipped with by the end of their studies).

The project also adapted over its lifetime to place greater emphasis on the achievement of greater business

efficiency and effectiveness by: reducing the number of manual workarounds undertaken by staff as a result

of limitations in systems and processes and achieving better systems integration to promote more flexible

use of the university’s estate for teaching and learning over the entire academic year.

3. What was the educational / organisational context in which you undertook your project?

Given the length of the project and its goal to have a lasting impact on the entire institution, it is

unsurprising that the educational and institutional context is woven within and across the UG-Flex project.

Of particular relevance to Greenwich has been the continuing downturn in demand for part time study

alongside the promise/potential for future growth from the change in rules on part time access to student

loans; the introduction of full cost fees and higher student loans; and the shift in Government policy on

widening participation which has come to focus on facilitating greater access to the top flight universities

rather than widening access for all.

6

In 2007-8 almost 9,500 (38%) out of a total 24.533 UK-based students were registered as part-time. In 2010-

11 this had dropped to 8,436 (30%) of 27,723 UK-based students.

The University of Greenwich is still recognised as a widening participation institution although this is now

articulated differently and there is a vision of Greenwich as a “university of choice”. This new emphasis on

quality is set to continue going forward and is articulated in “Charting a Course for the Future”, the

university’s new strategic plan for 2012-2107

Numbers of students studying with overseas collaborative partners has increased significantly over the

project’s lifetime from a total of 3,743 students in 2007/08 to 11,551 students in 2010/11. Consequently,

although initially deemed outside of the project’s scope, this position became difficult to justify as

stakeholder requirements were increasingly articulated in relation to the needs and interests of these

students who shared many of the problems and frustrations experienced by home based students on flexible

programmes.

Taking into consideration the increase in the numbers of University of Greenwich students based overseas

with collaborative partners, the trend has been a 71% increase in the numbers of students studying on

“flexible” programmes that start outside of a September – July cycle. However it should be noted that these

figures are not directly attributable to the UG-Flex project.

Internally the project worked with the existing organisational context – 10 “semi-autonomous ”

schools/institutes afforded a large degree of autonomy, supported by business support/professional offices.

In base lining activity conducted by the project in 2009 exposed significant amounts of mistrust and

frustration among staff in the academic schools and central services and these could be directly attributed to

the consequences of divergent practice and customs that emerged from the highly devolved structure.

From the outset the project sought to engage with stakeholders from across the entire institution, and this

was partially successful. Representatives from every school and office, the students’ union and an employer

representative were invited to participate in the project management group or the project steering group

and in the series of one-off stakeholder workshops.

Responses to this invitation and the extent to which school and office representatives actively disseminated

information about the project among their colleagues tended to reflect a mixture of the pre-existing culture

in each school and office, the attitudes of their senior staff / teams; the degree of interest in and actually

delivery of flexible curriculum models and the level of engagement /usage of central systems and processes.

Over the project lifetime, five out of the 10 schools/institutes and 9 out of the 13 support/professional

offices have had representatives as active members of both the project steering group and project

management group - these representatives have tended to be senior representatives of their school / office.

At a senior level support for the project has come from the Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic Development

(who chaired the project Steering Group). Student representation has been more sporadic, with elected

Students Union officers attending the Steering Group in 2009/10 and 2011/12.

7

It was noted relatively early on in the project’s lifetime that the project management group and steering

group brought colleagues together in a new context. The incorporation of at least one discussion theme into

every project meeting was designed to promote discussion and debate between colleagues. This technique

produced numerous frank and engaging exchanges as well as opportunity to share information and

knowledge – click here for a short video clip from an early project meeting in 2009:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsjAkMBSO4g. Over time this approached succeeded in building up

new trust and understanding between stakeholders and consequently these groups outgrew their original

“terms of reference” over the project’s lifetime and came to function as a dynamic and “unique” space both

for the project and for the wider university. In the words of two stakeholders reflecting in April 2012 “this

forum has been very good….it is completely multi-disciplinary in that it has got people from everywhere and

it is able to discuss every perspective in one place….” “conversations can run…..it has been a forum that is

quite unique.”

The composition of the project’s stakeholder groups along with the appointment of a Project Manager and

the Project Business Analysis (both external appointments) gave the project early credibility in terms of an

ability to maintain independence and objectivity; it also meant the project was relatively well placed to

adapt to changes to the organisational context. This was characterised by the appointment of two new

Deputy Vice Chancellors in 2009 and the appointment of a new Vice Chancellor in 2011. Under this new

leadership there has been a shift towards greater centralisation and oversight of some business processes,

notably academic/curriculum planning and quality assurance. Where appropriate the UG-Flex was able to

articulate recommendations arising out of its consultation and dialogue with stakeholders, for example in

relation to the automation of quality assurance processes and changes to prevent the recruitment of

students to any new programme until all the conditions imposed by the approval process had been met and

signed off.

On another occasion, the project shared with the Director of Personnel stakeholder concerns about the

extent to which the academic staff contract could deliver more flexible curriculum design and ensure that

this was taken into account in the introduction by the university in 2010/11 of a new balanced academic

workload model.

4. What was the technology context?

The overarching strategy for student information systems at the University of Greenwich is to facilitate real

time integration and provisioning as far as possible, using the student records system (SunGard Banner2) as

the authoritative source in respect of data on students and their curricula.

In line with this strategy, the key technical output anticipated at the outset of the UG-Flex project was to

leverage the university’s existing systems infrastructure more effectively to facilitate greater flexibility in

curriculum design and delivery.

2 With effect from March 2012 SunGard became part of a new company called Ellusian.

8

In response to the requirements identified by stakeholders (described in detail in Section 5), and after

lengthy analysis, development and testing, the project launched two separate enhancements to the

“baseline” SunGard Banner product as follows:

1. Additional functionality to capture, scrutinise and report on data on programme validation and

review in order to facilitate better planning and tracking of course and programme approval and

review; reduce reliance on disparate school-based unsynchronised ‘shadow IT systems’.

2. Additional functionality to capture up to 12 separate start months and to embed this concept into

the system design in order to facilitate more efficient and responsive management of data on

flexible students and curricula.

The new functionality consists of:

a. New code written to create forms to cater for additional data requirement and associated new

database objectives in the curriculum database to store and manipulate data

b. Creating and running script to update data on existing programmes;

c. New code written to change the user view of the self-service interface with the student records

system to make the new data available to all users across the university.

The project also conducted detailed analysis that demonstrated that the student records system (along with

most other systems run by UK HEIs) had been built on the default rules laid down by a “standard” curriculum

where teaching starts (usually on campus) in Sept/October and runs over three terms/two trimesters and

completes in June/July. At Greenwich the student records system enforces these rules on all programmes

and students without exception and all “non-standard” curricula is made to fit with a series of manual

adjustments and workarounds that are simply not scalable or efficient. A cost benefit analysis exercise

conducted in early 2012 identified potential savings in staff time of upwards of £200,000 that could be made

by cutting out the need for manual adjustments, rework and duplication.

Literally hundreds of hours of analysis and reflection and discussion went into identifying potential solutions

that would reduce the reliance on manual adjustment, rework and duplication. In 2010/11 the project

produced a specification for a new configuration of Greenwich’s student records systems that would remove

the distinctions between “standard” and “non-standard”. This solution has not yet been implemented, first

because of the challenges faced in coming up with a cost benefit analysis of the solution and second, once

this was delivered, the significant upfront development costs far exceeded the resource available to the

project.

It is recognised that delivering such enhancements within a vendor based systems environment presents

particular challenges in terms of application for the wider sector. The specific functional and technical

specifications which support the two enhancements outlined above are of use principally to other

institutions that use the SunGard Banner product to run their student records systems.

This said, many UK HEIs work with the same or similar product-based applications and the approach and

techniques used by the UG-Flex project, as well as the documentation and process maps it has produced, will

be of interest to IT professionals / teams based at other universities who are considering similar issues

relating to how to deliver more agile and responsive information systems that can cope with “flexible

curricula”. The project team has already shared what they have learned through UK-based networks of

SunGard Banner user (SEUG) and through hosting a visit to Greenwich by another institution.

9

The project’s stakeholder consultation activities exposed a series of additional requirements relating to the

university’s information systems that were not possible to address within the resources of the project.

However the Project Manager did work with colleagues in other departments where possible to identify and

implement technological solutions to the issues raised by stakeholders. The outcomes of this work were:

Implementation of a short course booking and payment system for non-credit bearing short courses

run by the University of Greenwich, using an off the shelf package developed by WPM Education.

Implementation of “study path” functionality in baseline Banner ( version 8) – a key component in

managing complex student study pathways such a concurrent curricula in the University of

Greenwich student records system;

Coordination of a successful bid to JISC to implement the XCRI-CAP standard that allows course

information from a “source of truth” to be shared across and between organisations in XML format,

enabling data to be more readily available, enhance data quality and improve efficiency. (Click here

for record of discussion of concept in early 2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ_DPXcLKG8)

Recommendations to automate quality assurance process (ongoing).

5. How did you approach the project?

From the outset the project sought to engage with stakeholders across the institution and to use their

requirements to inform the project approach and its outputs and outcomes.

In the period April – June 2009 the project undertook an initial requirements gathering exercise which

comprised four 3 hour workshops involving around 60 members of staff (both administrators and

academics) who used rich pictures to articulate key issues and needs. (Rich pictures are an aspect of Peter

Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)) Participants were asked to draw and then describe their “real

world” impressions of curriculum design and deliver at Greenwich followed by their “ideal world”

impressions.

(Click here to see a short video of clips from one of the rich picture workshops:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4qxGZdU9vc)

Over the next few months these were scrutinised and articulated into a scope document designed to be

clear and easily understood by all stakeholders (See UG-Flex Project Scope 2009-10).

The intention was to work through each of the “areas of investigation”, conducting detailed business

analysis and further consultation on potential solutions. Following discussion at the Project Management

Group, Validation and Review was selected as the first area of investigation, followed by the Library of

Academic Models. In both cases the project found significant value in conducting thorough investigation and

business analysis in relation to these requirements and conducted a comprehensive process mapping

exercise using Unified Modelling Language (UML).

Mid-way through 2010, following a discussion at a Project Steering Group meeting when the assumption of a

shared institutional commitment to flexibility began to unravel, the project’s approach was judged not fit for

purpose. (The decision also coincided with a change of Government and the anticipation of a major shakeup

in HE funding). Following 3 months of reflection and re-examination of stakeholder requirements, the

project scope was repurposed (See New UG-Flex Project Scope 2010-12)

10

2009 - 2010

2010-2012

11

Essentially the change from mid-2010 was that the project’s focus was on delivering the best support for the

existing curriculum – including flexible programmes – and on improving the quality of this to ensure all

students had the best possible experience and chance of success.

The outcome of this shift in the project’s approach essentially expanded the areas where the project could

intervene and helped the project team to engage in issues where the project had struggled to be relevant to

some stakeholder groups, notably with curriculum teams reviewing their courses and programmes. Most

significantly, the project was able to tackle an issue of institution-wide significance, namely the academic

calendar/framework.

Over the project’s lifetime the Project Management Group and Project Steering Group have monitored

progress against the project delivery plan and work packages (meetings have been 9x and 3x a year

respectively). The work packages have been updated regularly by the Project Manager to reflect the

project’s developing / changing approach. Reports on progress have also been made to the University

Executive Committee in 2009 and 2011.

The project used a variety of approaches to stakeholder engagement as follows:

Rich Pictures: This method of requirements gathering was selected because it was considered to be an

effective way to deal with the complexity of the “problem space” the project was tackling - where there was

no agreement even on what the problems were, let alone how to address it. Feedback from participants and

also from the team responsible for analysing the requirements articulated at the rich picture workshops

judged the method used to be appropriate, useful and enjoyable.

Four subsequent workshops with staff from schools and support/professional offices followed in 2010 and

2011 and used a range of techniques designed to elicit more specific requirements and information,

including: Cause and Effect Analysis (“fishbone” diagrams) and the MoSCoW method.

Plans to engage employers as stakeholders were swiftly dropped from the project approach following the

shift in the project aims and objectives away from the development of new flexible courses.

The project initially sought to engage and respond to students by inviting a student representative to join

the Project Steering Group – a partially successful strategy although the turnover of students posed

problems in terms of induction into an already established group. Subsequently the project sought to

engage students through existing fora, notably through a working group set up in 2010 to develop strategies

to engage and respond to new students. An approach that proved to be particularly successful in engaging

and capturing student views was the use of World Cafes.

Additionally, the project manager arranged to borrow a VOXUR unit (kindly lent by the T-SPARC project at

Birmingham City University) to design a survey and capture student feedback on video. See the following

blog entry for further details: http://www.ugflex.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/t-sparc-comes-to-greenwich.html

The redefinition of the project’s scope in 2010 opened up new opportunities to link the project’s work with

academic practice in relation to the curriculum.

For six months in the first half of 2011 the UG-FLEX project manager worked for two days a week with the

university’s Educational Development Unit, and facilitated training on some of the tools and methods

12

developed by other projects in the JISC CDD programme to support curriculum teams, notably the University

of Ulster’s Viewpoints resources.

The engagement with the Viewpoints project was instrumental in the development by the project team

along with colleagues in the Educational Development Unit of a new interactive workshop on student

transition: See example of tools used in workshop on student transition:

http://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/page/46607555/UG-Flex%20Design%20Tools

The project’s approach to evaluation was to conduct a combination of formative and summative evaluation

activities, using for example Nominal Group Technique, surveys, one-to-one interviews and group

discussions.

An example of how the project acted on feedback was when it was observed that the project was not

feeding sufficiently engaging with the needs of curriculum teams. As a result the Project Manager arranged

the secondment to the university’s Educational Development Unit. There was also a diversification in the

engagement strategies used by the project with a greater emphasis on more “submarine” tactics, using the

Educational Development Unit networks and infrastructure to share practice, downplaying the role of the

UG-Flex project per se.

A series of evaluation activities conducted by two evaluators associated with the university (internal but

“independent”) proved to be moderately useful in confirming knowledge of the low levels of awareness

about the project across the institutions and in some schools and offices in particular. A change in the

approach to the project evaluation was agreed by the Project Management Group in 2011 and an external

evaluator appointed. A series of interviews and workshop with stakeholders were conducted in order to

assess the project’s impact and to make recommendations for future developments beyond the project’s

lifetime. (A copy of the external evaluator’s report “Evaluation of UG-FLEX: Key Findings”, July 2012 is

available at www.gre.ac.uk/ils/ugflex.

6. What benefits has your project delivered and who are the beneficiaries

The UG-Flex project has delivered the following tangible benefits:

Benefits Beneficiaries Details

More structured and

granular information on

courses and programmes

and on students on the

University of Greenwich

student records system.

Academic staff (e.g. in

programme teams),

senior school staff

(Directors of Learning &

Quality and Resources

Staff had previously had to extrapolate information

manually, often time-consuming and error-prone.

Identified by stakeholders back in 2009 as major

point of pain for staff in schools and central offices

and it is anticipated that the will achieve

considerable efficiency savings. See comments from

one stakeholder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQWkoWWB8r

k

13

Access to structured and

granular data on

curriculum

Students Staff and students now have access to accurate

information about their programmes of study, for

example: online enrolment for students based

overseas and online personalised timetables as well

as the appropriate resources for their courses on

the university’s VLE.

See discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KrAimo7pgM

Better training and support

in information literacy

Senior academic staff

(e.g. Programme

Managers, Head of

Department)

Educational

Development Unit staff

Human Resources staff

Surveys and focussed discussions with academic

managers and the evidence from these is that many

struggle to use digital information to fulfil aspects of

their role and moreover were often entirely

unaware how this information could be used to

enhance the quality of teaching and learning.

Staff now have access to improved training and

support materials in information management and

digital literacies, tailored to individual needs. This

work is continuing through the University of

Greenwich JISC-funded digital literacies in HE

project

A Training Providers Network was set up in June

2012 and is administered by the University of

Greenwich’s Human Resources offices.

Tools to support staff to

engage in high quality

curriculum design,

resulting in higher quality

curricula, awareness and

engagement.

Academic staff

(programme teams etc.)

All staff in schools and

business

support/professional

offices.

Educational

development Unit staff

Using tools developed by the University of Ulster’s

Viewpoints project and other bespoke tools,

members of Greenwich’s Educational Development

Unit are now working directly with programme

teams to help them to explore how to improve their

courses to maximise student success.

Interactive Staff Development Workshop “Snakes &

Ladders”. See also

http://ugflex.blogspot.com/2011/06/disseminating-

good-practice-knowledge.html for commentary on

how Greenwich has engaged with the Viewpoints

materials. any thanks to Alan Masson and Catherine

O’Donnell from the University of Ulster for their

help and generosity with their time.

14

Improved quality

assurance procedures and

systems, notably for

course approval and

review.

Academic staff,

administrative staff in

Office of Student

Affairs.

Learning & Quality Unit

Procedures reviewed and improved for the

approval and review of programmes; monitoring of

programme approval and review automated and

fully accessible to staff.

See short discussion at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cF9i0X1bbI

Better knowledge and

understanding of the

complexities and costs of

curriculum flexibility in an

HE institution.

HEI and wider HE

community (in UK and

internationally)

SunGard/Ellusian

See stakeholder comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8edqg7fsT4

We are in a position to share models for the

adaption of systems to manage flexibility and an

understanding of the complexity of flexibility in an

HE institution.

Ellusian are very interested in the outcomes of this

project. “We are seen as a point of authority in

Europe”.

A model for stakeholder

engagement,

communication and

dialogue that can deliver

continuous improvement

Information Systems

Professionals, Change

Managers, Projects

Managers and

Academic Managers in

HEIs

Stakeholder Engagement Tools:

Rich Pictures

Nominal Group Technique in meetings (how

to guide)

Going for a quick win

World Cafes - a way to engage stakeholders

in productive conversations

World Cafes (as a tool for student

engagement)

Stakeholder comments on achievement of

continuous improvement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj0ahUKvDSI

Stakeholder comments on cultural change:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDA3YtL6cqs

Practical support for those involved in leading and managing change in HEIs (or any organisation going through change).

Change managers, project managers, senior managers in HEIs

“Creative Thoughts on Change” a tool to support

change managers.

15

An intangible benefit that the UG-Flex project has delivered relates to institutional mind-set / cultural

change: It has been described by the UG-Flex project director (2008-12) as follows:

“We’ve made a journey from learned helplessness to a sense that actually we can take some control

and we can make things happen….. It was an idea a minute but actually people were sitting there

saying we can’t get the actual day-to-day things to work….Despite all the rhetoric Greenwich really

wasn’t delivering the day-to-day business or really thinking what all this partnership and flexibility

was about. We were very good at having little working parties that told us why we really couldn’t

do things……..UG Flex came along and people started to systematically try to work through and

disentangle and pull out some of those issues and look at them in a systematic way . In a sense

everybody grew up but everybody grew up from very different positions…..I think people started to

grow up and grow together…. That is actually quite a big change. It sounds very airy fairy but it is

not, it is quite solid.”

For a video of the interview with Maureen Castens the project director, go to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYtA3DHKKKs

16

The UG-Flex Project is credited by the University of Greenwich’s Head of Information Systems with having

contributed to the achievement of significantly greater interoperability between systems in the period 2008

– 2012 that have according to Gartner created a model at Greenwich that is in the top 5% of student systems

in the UK.

IMS Message

Broker

Student Records &

Course Management

[Banner]

Enterprise

Portal

[Luminis on uPortal]

VLE

[WebCT]Identity Management

[Novell IDM]

File &

PrintEmail Software

Provision via rules (currently bespoke)

Single Sign On

Single Sign On

Provision ProvisionP

rovis

ion

Library

Management

System

[Talis]

Sin

gle

Sig

n O

n

for

se

lf s

erv

ice

an

d r

ea

din

g lis

ts

SSO

for self service

Timetabling

[Syllabus Plus]

Pro

vis

ion

Sin

gle

Sig

n O

n for in

div

idualis

ed c

ale

ndar

In production

Planned 2009

2008

17

What outputs has your project produced?

Outputs/Resources Use in project Benefits achieved

Shareable design proposals for managing

curriculum flexibility in student records systems

Presentation to SEUG Conference (January

2011)

2011 Report on options for reconfiguring the

University of Greenwich student records

system to accommodate flexible curricula

Options for adoption

2012/13

Recognition of the

complexity of achieving

flexibility and of the need

for boundaries.

Case for review of academic calendar/academic

framework to meet:

Quality / flexibility / efficiency agenda

Summary of Research on calendars in use in UK

HEIs (2010)

Proposal to University of Greenwich Academic

Council 2 May 2012 to amend the academic

framework/calendar

Case to senior managers

for a change to the

University’s Academic

Framework

On 2 May 2012, the

University of Greenwich’s

Academic Council approved

a proposal to adopt three

trimesters of equal length

across the full academic

year from 2013/14.

Technical specification for enhancement to

Banner Student Records System:-

(i) Approval & Review reports (ii) After Actions Reviews of

Approval & Review

Enhancements made to

student records system.

Staff and students have

better quality information

on the curriculum /

students / their

programmes of study.

Efficiencies in terms of staff

time.

Curriculum Design Tools:

First year transition curriculum planning tool:

Snakes Templates

Ladders Templates

Sharing good practice with

staff involved in student

transition

100+ staff have used the

tool; positive feedback on

impact on practice. Tool

presented at 3 external

events/conferences in 2012.

Report on review of quality assurance Used to make Better processes and better

18

processes (approval and review) at University

of Greenwich (2010), with copies of process

maps

recommendations for

enhancements to student

records system and to

quality processes

understanding / awareness

of processes

Training programme and materials for

programme managers on use of data and

information management

Current information literacy training offer for staff:

Resources via Digital Literacies in HE project

Used to up skill programme

managers

8 programme managers

trained and positive

feedback received.

Training Providers Network

established, June 201

Guides to Stakeholder Engagement:

Rich Pictures

Nominal Group Technique in meetings

(how to guide)

Going for a quick win

World Cafes - a way to engage

stakeholders in

productive conversations

World Cafes (as a tool for student

engagement)

Videos clips on stakeholder engagement are

available on the UG-Flex You Tube channel

Techniques used to engage

stakeholders

Effective stakeholder

engagement leading to

recognition of continuous

improvement.

Generic: evaluation reports, research outputs,

blog, website, contributions to conferences,

minutes of meetings, final event report and

handout

Presentation to IBL conference

World Cafe workshop at Teaching and Learning

Conference

Blog posts

Final event presentation

Project outcomes and impact handout

To inform and guide

project

Project delivered tangible

benefits and outcomes.

Evidence of lessons learned.

Case Studies

1. Data – Why get it right?

2. Does your calendar work for you?

3. Creative Conversations on the

Curriculum

4. Flexibility: Easy to Say – Hard to Deliver

5. Organisational Change – Some practical

tips

To share project outcomes

and impact with wider

sector

TBC

19

7. Has delivering the project brought about any unexpected consequences?

The UG-Flex project is perceived by stakeholder to be operating as a catalyst for change in all aspects of

digital information / digital management of the curriculum. According to one academic from the School of

Engineering, “because of UG-Flex there has been an increased awareness of and demand for greater

flexibility on the VLE…and there has been a response. …Access is not denied any more….Whether or not it

was denied is immaterial there is more trust now.”

UG-Flex has offered a model for more effective communication and continuous improvement. Back in 2009

at the initial stakeholder consultation events, accounts of problems resulting from poor communication and

knowledge silos were common themes. At the time the project did not envisage that it would be able to

offer any tangible solutions – it was supposed that these issues were far wider than the project and out of

scope. As the project draws to a close it is now recognised that the project’s stakeholder engagement

techniques have provided a new dynamic to the institution that can be exploited and replicated.

As a result of the project’s use of business analysts, the university has a tangible example of the value of

business analysis in identifying key requirement and intricate dependencies and well as wider institutional

issues. In 2011 the office of Information & Library Services reviewed its structure and created a new

Programme Management and Quality office, which includes dedicate project management and business

analyst resource.

Recognition that systems changes in themselves cannot and will not deliver a more agile, flexible curriculum

at Greenwich have resulted in a series of proposals to senior managers to change Greenwich’s Academic

Framework. Significant institutional change on this scale was not envisaged at the project outset.

8. How will the project be developed further / sustained?

It is the view of the project management group, endorsed separately by an independent project evaluator

that the UG-FLEX project has had a significant impact on strategy, policy and attitudes at the University of

Greenwich that will be sustained after the project’s lifetime.

Stakeholders who have been adopters and champions, while a relatively small proportion of staff, are

nevertheless key change agents, and they now have raised expectations around information systems and

management of the curriculum and supporting information and data and a momentum for continuous

improvement is building.

Funding has been secured to initiate a new project to change the university’s academic calendar with effect

from 2013/14, which is a direct outcome of UG-FLEX.

A proposal has been made to continue the project management group as a forum to discuss, debate and

reflect on continuous improvement in information systems after project formally comes to an end in July

2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxk3DEGwXZk

20

It is envisaged that this forum will feed directly into plans for further enhancements to the student records

system and related systems and processes. Specifically, the issue of introducing a single point of re-

registration for all students irrespective of their start point (a major point of pain for students articulated at

the project workshops in 2009) has yet to be resolved and this a priority for further enhancements going

forward.

Thanks to dissemination activities undertaken as part of the project plan, there is a good level of awareness

of the project’s work, particularly among other HEIs who use the Banner system to manage their student

records. In March 2012, the project hosted a good practice visit by representatives from UCLAN to share its

research into the options for building a more agility and responsiveness into Banner.

In July 2012, the external project evaluation report was presented to the UG-FLEX Steering Group. This

report contains nine recommendations for how the project’s work can be sustained and embedded towards

supporting the University of Greenwich’s key strategies. The Steering Group agreed that these

recommendations should be formally presented to the Vice Chancellor and the four deputy Vice Chancellors

at the earliest opportunity in the new academic year, with a view to adoption of at least four of the

recommendations by 2013/14.

9. Summary and Reflection

In summary, the UG-Flex project has delivered significant impact and benefits to staff and students at the

University of Greenwich. However these are slightly different to those originally envisaged at the project’s

outset and this can be attributed to a combination of changing external drivers and contexts and the impact

or otherwise on Greenwich circumstances and priorities.

While it is not yet possible to measure the project’s impact on the levels of flexible curriculum design, but it

is agreed that the project has contributed to new understanding of the complexity of delivering a curriculum

of the highest quality in a cost effective way. Further, the project can also demonstrate that it has improved

the quality of the experience of students following existing flexible programmes. Overall there is greater

recognition that flexible curriculum design and delivery must be of a high quality.

As a result of the enhancements delivered by the UG-Flex project there have been cost savings (of up to

£100,000) in terms of a reduction of staff time spent on manual adjustments or rework. It is anticipated that

there will be a continued savings going forward along with benefits in terms of institutional reputation

resulting from an improved student experience.

The project has helped Greenwich to understand that achieving greater flexibility in the curriculum is very

easy to say but incredibly difficult and complex to deliver. Where initially “the system” was seen as the

barrier to flexibility it is now understood that systems enhancement is only part of the bigger picture. To

complete the picture requires a clear academic rationale and consideration of academic practice, resources

as well as an organisational culture and mind-set that embraces collaboration and cooperation towards a

common goal.

Change on this scale will take a long time: there is evidence of a large degree of change among a relatively

small proportion of staff at Greenwich and potentially a combination of bottom up recommendation and

21

word of mouth together with more strategic interventions in relation to training and policy will succeed in

embedding the change the project has achieved.

One of the biggest challenges for the project team has been to communicate the project’s work and impact

to external institutions/audiences in ways that will emphasize their value. Hopefully this report and the

resources it signposts will provide assistance to others, not least by normalising the degree of uncertainty,

shifting priorities and unexpected learning that is part and parcel of any attempt to deliver meaningful

institutional change with the consent and input of stakeholders.

Some top tips:

Anticipate chaos

Engage stakeholders and keep them engaged

Use business analysts

Develop and maintain a project ethos of objectivity

Use a blend of objective project management strategies (i.e. Prince2) with low key “pervasive”

interventions that encourage stakeholder to identify and understand problems and to engineer their

own solutions

What would we do differently?

Allocate more funding to business analysis and less to development;

Expect more from stakeholders once they have become adopters of the project’s goals (e.g.

dissemination to their associates / colleagues, contributions to project blog);

Maintain efforts to secure greater engagement from more staff and students throughout project

lifetime;

More use of video throughout project;

Use a blog more effectively as an up-to-date tool for communication;

Get JISC to recommend / appoint an external evaluator right from the outset.