Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning

ISSN: 0009-1383 (Print) 1939-9146 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vchn20

Why Universities Need Technology Strategies

Sir John S. Daniel

To cite this article: Sir John S. Daniel (1997) Why Universities Need Technology Strategies,
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 29:4, 10-17, DOI: 10.1080/00091389709602322

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091389709602322

Published online: 25 Mar 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 145

View related articles

Citing articles: 24 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vchn20

Download by: [VIA University College] Date: 21 June 2017, At: 05:25
10
 BY S I R J O H N S DANIEL

Editors Note: Thefollowing article was adaptedfrom a

speech given to the AAHE National Conference last March
by Sir John S Daniel, Vice-Chancellorof the Open Univer-
sity in Milton Keynes, England. It is based on his 1996
book, Mega-universities and Knowledge Media: Technolo-
gy Strategies for Higher Education (London,Kogan Page).

I
n most of the world, higher education is mired in
a crisis that mixes three issues: access, cost, and
flexibility. Unless we resolve this crisis, billions
of people in the coming generations will be de-
nied the intellectual liberation of the academic
mode of thinking. The United States has the
worlds strongest university system but seems ill-equipped
to guide us out of the crisis. This is because the U.S. system
is peculiarly wedded to the technologies of real-time teach-
ing and to the outmoded idea that quality in education is
necessarily linked to exclusivity of access and extrava-
gance of resource.There is today, however, a new type of
university that is providing answers to the crises of access,
cost, and flexibility-the mega-university. In this article, 3.
I will explore the implications of this new phenomenon for
U.S. higher education.
2
i
8
Sir John S Daniel graduated from the ancient universities of Ox- p
ford and Paris but has spent much of his career developing dis-
tance education in Canadasnewer universities. He moved to the 5
Open University in I990 and was knighted by the Queen in I994 5
i
for services to higher eduation. I

11
 At the end of the millennium in which the idea of the university
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................

has blossomed, population growth is outpacing the worlds capacity

...................................................................................................................................................................... ..........................................

to give people access to universities.

I aim to convince you of six proposi- the world, your university system is In some developing countries the sit-
tions. Each proposition will give you driven by teaching rather than learning. uation is desperate. Listen to what the
more difficulty than the last, so I must be 5. Todays knowledge media, a World Bank has to say about universi-
increasingly persuasive as I lead you up- term I shall explain later, change the ties in Africa:
stairs. I shall describe developments that relationship between people and
Unfortunately university institutions
will make you uneasy, and challenge you knowledge in a fundamental way.
in their present fonn-overwhelmed
with a world perspective. I hope that my That affects the way we should address
with problems related to access, fi-
burning issues light fires for you. As aca- the other propositions.
nance, quality, internal and external
demics, are we not citizens of the world? 6. We will aggravate the crisis if
efficiency-are not up to the chal-
Anyones ignorance diminishes us all, our approach to new technology is
lenge. Enrolment levels are shocking-
for we are involved in humankind. simply to let individual faculty mem-
ly low. Limited space and declining
Although I once worked in the United bers and departments do their own
budgetary levels prevent universities
States, I now look at U.S. higher educa- thing. We need universitywide technol-
from servicing the growing demand
tion through foreign eyes. They are ogy strategies.
for education.As a result, universities
friendly eyes. I have spent most of my
I. HIGHEREDUCATION
IN in sub-Saharan Africa suffer from
academic career crisscrossing Canada,
CRISIS low numbers of trained faculty, virtu-
and in constant communication with uni-
ally non-existentlevels of research,
versities south of its border. As the only First, higher education is in crisis
poor quality educational materials,
non-American trustee of the Camegie worldwide. The ingredients of the crisis
and outmoded programmes.
Foundation, I have had the inspiration of are access, cost, and flexibility, and they
African libraries have suffered im-
learning from the late Ernie Boyer and blend differently as you move around
mensely as collections have become
the privilege of working with some of the the globe. In the developing countries,
out of date and laboratory equipment
leading U.S. academics. I greatly admire there is a crisis of access. Right now,
is old and in disrepair.... It is thus
your higher education system, so my crit- one large, new campus would need to
highly questionable whether universi-
ical comments are made with affection. open every week, somewhere in the de-
ty institutionscan afford to continue
I say this because Americans are sen- veloping world, just to maintain present
to develop under this traditional mod-
sitive souls. The British and the Canadi- participation rates. Did a big new uni-
el of higher education, particularly if
ans are natural masochists and love to versity open somewhere last week?
the countriesof Africa wish to ex-
be criticized. But you Americans can be Probably not. Is another one on schedule
pand-more than marginally-access
reluctant to accept that your way of do- to start next week? Probably not.
to higher education while maintaining
ing something may not be the best way, At the end of the millennium in
quality.
let alone the only way. As a further which the idea of the university has
challenge to my persuasive skills, hon- blossomed, population growth is out- Not an encouraging picture! Access
esty and good pedagogy oblige me to pacing the worlds capacity to give peo- to universities-even to the impover-
list my six propositions up front. (You ple access to universities. Half the ished institutions evoked in those
can marshal your defenses now.) worlds population is now under 20- words-will not keep pace with the as-
1. Universities are in crisis. The cri- three-quarters in countries like South pirations of growing populations.
sis has three strands, which weave to- Africa and Palestine. Our traditional Why not? The answer leads us along
gether variously around the world. concept of the campus university will the second strand of the crisis: the mod-
2. The recipe for coping with the deny higher education to nearly all el of the university that we know and
crisis has only two basic ingredients. these young people. Yet providing them love costs too much. Africa simply
Individual universities must blend them with education and training is not just a cant afford more campuses with more
to taste. pressing issue for the countries con- classrooms and more student dormito-
3. Technology provides the most cerned. This is a time bomb ticking un- ries. But affordability is not just an
fertile ground for growing these two der our collective security. Without African problem. Figures from that in-
ingredients. We must understand what vigorous action, many of these young valuable identifier of trends, USA To-
makes our technological garden blos- people will grow up to be unemployed, day, show that for a U.S. family the cost
som. unconnected, and unstable. In a global of sending a child to college-tuition,
4. Despite an enviable infrastruc- world, that is a global problem. We re- room, and board-is approaching 15
ture, U.S. higher education is not us- quire mass training for employability percent of the median family income.
ing technology intelligently. That is and mass education to inspire the hu- Thats up from 9 percent of median
because, even more than elsewhere in man spirit. family income 15 years ago. Moreover,

12
 15 percent of income is the cost of send-
ing your offspring to a public universi-
ty. If you pick a private university, the
figure is nearly 40 percent of median
family income-up from just over 20
percent in the same 15-yearperiod.
Your fellow Americans are asking
whether this considerable personal in-
vestment in higher education returns
value for money. Does that send fris-
sons down your spine?
It should. A lesson of this century is
that any industry whose costs increase
faster than inflation over a long period is
heading for trouble: either for complete
collapse or for unpleasant upheavals. If
universities wish to avoid such turmoil,
we must exorcise our hang-ups about re-
ducing costs. We academics are unique-
ly resistant to the idea that
cheaper is better. The definition
of quality as fitness for pur-
pose at minimum cost to
society does not resonate with
us. Why not? Three reasons-
one noble, one simply human
nature, and one ignoble.
The noble reason is that with
current campus instruction,
there is a good correlation be-
tween available resources and
the rankings of universities on
teaching quality. For instance,
Britains nationwide teaching
quality assessments show, with
one notable exception, that the
number of excellentratings
universities receive broadly
match the funds available to
them. That is not surprising.
Higher education is still a craft
industry. Its the exception in
the British data that is interest-
ing. That anomaly is the Open Universi-
ty. Although its public expenditure per
student is about the lowest in Britain, the
Open University ranks in the top 20 uni-
versities for teaching quality. The signif-
icance of this exception is that the Open
University is a technology-based learn-
ing system. Technology is the way to re-
duce costs and enhance quality. I infer
that all universities need a technology
strategy.
The second reason academics dislike
cost-effectivenessis the monumental
function of universities. The noble ideals
of the academy have always attracted
the support of the wealthy: those kings,
queens, bishops, merchants, and indus-
1997
CHANGEJULYIAUGUST
trialists who wanted their memories to
live on in the names of campus build-
ings and professorial titles. In medieval
times, Europe built cathedrals to the
greater glory of God whose dimensions
and splendor went far beyond the sim-
ple requirements of worship. Over the
past century, most especially here in the
United States, the wealthy have built
and equipped university campuses far
beyond the basic needs of teaching and
research. Who can blame university
staff for enjoying the civilized environ-
ments of these well-endowed seats of
learning? To be reluctant to exchange
them for workplaces that are less ex-
travagantly over-engineered is only hu-
man nature.
The final-but ignoble-reason for
opposing economy is that the academic
tradition esteems faculty for who they
are, not for the value of what they pro-
duce. This means, first, that we instinc-
tively resist the substitution of capital
for labor and, second, that we show lit-
tle interest in finding out what academic
activities cost.
Which winds us into the third strand
of the crisis. Everywhere in higher edu-
cation there is a crisis of flexibility. You
know its elements well. Are universities
teaching the knowledge and skills that
students need? Do our teaching meth-
ods match the habits of todays learn-
ers? Are universities confident about
the quality of what they do? Can the tra-
ditional campus model refashion itself
for the era of lifelong learning?
So there is a triple crisis of access,
cost, and flexibility. Zemsky and Massy
captured it well when they wrote in the
NovemberDecember 1995Change,
What has changed is not just the pub-
lics mood but its willingness to sup-
port institutions that allocate goods
rather than serve customers and that
value producers more than products.
RESPONDINGTO THE CRISIS:
2.
Two INGREDIENTS
But we also face opportunities. New
technology is one of them. What should
we do about it? This brings us to my
second proposition: the recipe for re-
sponding to the crisis has only
two basic ingredients-costs
and differentiation. They com-
bine in a dish called competi-
tive advantage. Each
university must respond to the
crisis because it seeks to en-
hance its competitive advan-
tage. All universities are in a
changing, competitive envi-
ronment. Today not only other
universities but a congeries of
disparate organizations under-
take the activities of teaching,
research, and service to the
community that are the mis-
sion of higher education.
What keys unlock the door
to competitive advantage? You
know of Michael Porters
work on this topic, so a one-
sentence summary will do:
The competitive advantage of
an organization grows out of
the value it creates for its buyers, either
in terms of low prices or unique bene-
fits. Thats as true for universities as it
is for Microsoft or GM.
Who are our buyers? They are our
students. Governments, parents, and
employers may be surrogate buyers,
but if we focus on value for the student
we wont go far wrong. And what are
the two ingredients that students val-
ue? Answer: to be cheap and special.
Michael Porter, being American, uses
longer words. He says the keys to com-
petitiveness are cost-leadership and
differentiation. But, long words or
short, there is a problem. We find little
room for cutting costs and developing
13
TABLEI
THEMEGA-UNIVERSITIES:
BASICDATA
Country Name of Institution Founded Students Academic Staff (1996)
(as of 1995) Part-time Full-time
China China TV University System 1979 530,0003 13,000 18,000
................................................................................................................................ .........................................................................................................................
France Centre National dEnseignement B Distance 1939 184,6143 3,OOo 1,800
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
India Indira Gandhi National Open University 1985 242,000 13,420 232
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Indonesia Universitas Terbuka 1984 353,000 5,000 79 1
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Iran Payame Noor University 1987 117,0004 3,165 499
Korea Korea National Open University 19821 210,578 2,670 176
South Africa Universitv of South Africa 18732 130,000 1,964 1,348
Spain Universidad Nacional de Educaci6n a Distancia 1972 110,000 3,600 1,000
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Thailand Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University 1978 216,800 3,108 429
............................................. .............................................................................................................................................................................................................
Turkey Anadolu University 1982 577,804 680 579
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
United Kingdom The Open University 1969 157,450 7,376 815

Notes
As the Korea Air and CorrespondenceUniversity
*As the University of the Cape of Good Hope
3 1994 Figure
41996 Figure

difference within the confines of to- The numbers alone-2.8 million stu- sities in the same country. In two cases,
days campus classroom. When you dents in just 1 1 universities-suggest its only 10 percent of that average. The
cut costs and develop difference within that these mega-universities are resolv- cost revolution is real.
this familiar framework, it seems you ing the crisis of access. They are also a These mega-universities have also
must sacrifice quality. dramatic response to the crisis of cost, addressed the crisis of flexibility. They
as the table shows. allow lifelong learners to study whenev-
3. TECHNOLOGY
AND In the United States, there are 3,500 er they choose and wherever they are.
UNIVERSITY
RENEWAL colleges and universities enrolling 14 Let me explain the secret of their
So, to my third proposition, which is million students, with an annual expen- success and correct a basic misconcep-
that new technology provides the most diture on higher education of around tion. These mega-universities owe
fertile ground for growing these key in- $175 billion. Thats an average cost of their success to technology. They owe
gredients of university renewal: lower $12,500per student. In Britain, we have it, however, to new applications of
costs and unique attractions. Here, for 182higher education institutions, 1.6 technology rather than to applications
brevitys sake, I shall argue from exam- million students, and an annual expendi- of new technology. But what is tech-
ple. There is a new type of university, hue of some $16 billion. Thats around nology? Heres how we define it for
based on different technology, that is $lO,OOOper studentllot quite as expen- students at the Open University:
now most successful in answering the sive as here but in the same ballpark. Technology is the application of sci-
crises of access, cost, and flexibility. Now group together the 1 1 mega- entific and other organized knowledge
It is the mega-university, a term I universities. They enroll, between them, to practical tasks by organizations
use to designate a university that some 2.8 million students. Their bud- consisting of people and machines.
teaches at a distance and has at least gets aggregate to a bit less than $1 bil- Lets unpack that. First: technology
100,000students. There are now 1 1 of lion-thats under $350 per student. So is more than applied science. Non-scien-
them, but since none of them is in the there is more than an order of magni- tific knowledge, such as crafts, design,
United States you wont know much tude difference compared to either the tacit knowledge, and managerial skills
about them. Of course, you have state U.S. or UK per-student costs. That is a are also involved. Second: technology is
university systems, which have sever- powerful response to the crisis of cost. about practical tasks-whereas science
al hundred thousand students. But they Statistical purists may object to is about understanding. Third-and very
are federated universities with sepa- adding up rupees and rands, pounds and important-technology always involves
rate campuses and thousands of facul- pesetas to give an aggregate mega-uni- people and their social systems. So
ty. The mega-universities are unitary versity budget. Fair comment. The real when you use technology in education,
institutions with one campus and hun- comparison is within each country. In remember that processes, approaches,
dreds of faculty. Table 1 lists these by each case, the per capita student cost at rules, and ways of organizing things are
country, name, year founded, and stu- the mega-university is no more than just as important as the devices with col-
dent and faculty numbers. half the average cost at the other univer- ored lights that we call hardware.

14 1997
CHANGE9 JULYJAUGUST
 Your current conception of distance education is not just harmless deviancy.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
It prevents you from reaping the benefits of a revolution
.................................................................
in higher education.

The key technology for the mega- reason? Your instructional system is close to the farmer as his pigpen or his
universities is not any particular device. driven by teaching rather than by learn- toolbox. But that focus on individual
It is the increasingly organized body of ing, by the needs of professors rather learning never became a prestigious tra-
knowledge called distance education. than students. dition. Maybe for that reason, many
And thats where the misconception Fighting words. I must justify them. U.S. universities are now developing re-
lies. When I say that the secret of the To do so I must summarize the essen- mote-group teaching, notably through
mega-universitiesis distance education, tials of distance education. videoconferencing.
you make an immediate assumption Point 1. There are only two ap- Thats your choice. But be warned
about how they teach. Most of you as- proaches to distance education: one tar- that it has a high opportunity cost. By
sume wrong. Thats because contempo- gets individual learning; the other focusing on remote-group teaching,
rary America has got distance education focuses on group teaching. Whatever universities are passing up the opportu-
wrong. The Congressional Office of terms people invent-distributed learn- nity to use distance education to re-
Technology Assessment defines dis- ing, correspondence study, flexible spond to the crises of access, cost, and
tance learning as the linking of a teach- learning, home-study, remote-class- flexibility. The individual learning tra-
er and students in several geographic room teaching, tele-education, guided dition of distance education has much
locations via technology that allows for study, or whatever-distance education more to offer in addressing these three
interaction. still boils down to these two traditions. crises than remote-group teaching. Let
That is a fair summary of what most And they are very different. me explain.
Americans think distance education is, Point 2. The most important differ- Look first at the mega-universities.
namely simultaneous audio- or video- ence between them is that the group All of them, except one, focus on the
conferencingto a set of remote class- teaching approach is based on syn- individual at home or at work. That is
rooms. But that is not how the rest of chronous communication (teachers and the basis of their impressive achieve-
the world conceives distance education. students must communicate in real ment of offering flexible higher educa-
Heres a definition from South Africa. time) whereas the individual learning tion to tens of thousands of students at
Its longer, but also richer: approach is based on asynchronous low cost. The exception-the China
communication (creating the university TV University-proves the rule. A
Distance education is the offering of
in students homes so they can study satellite-to-classroom operation, the
educational programmes designed to
there when it suits them). China TVU is run by 18,000 full-time
facilitate a learning strategy which
Point 3. Another important conse- faculty-a university presidents
does not depend on day-to-day contact
quence follows. In the group teaching dream-whereas most of the other
teaching but makes best use of the po-
scenario, the teacher communicates mega-universities have fewer than a
tential of studentsto study on their
with students in a network of class- thousand. There are concerns that the
own. It provides interactivestudy ma-
rooms in real time; it is a teacher-cen- China TVU is gradually breaking up
terial and decentralised learning facili-
tered form of education. Thats not into a multi-campus conventional net-
ties where studentscan seek academic
meant pejoratively. Its simply a fact work and losing its cutting edge of low
and other forms of educational assis-
that if you try to set up a system for a cost and consistent quality.
tance when they need it.
teacher to address a number of remote Take a mega-university that does fo-
I do not dispute your right as Ameri- groups you must design it from the cus on individual students. The UK
cans to define distance education as you teachers point of view. Under the indi- Open University has already had a
like, even if you differ from the rest of vidual learning scenario, you re-create greater global impact than any universi-
the world. However, your current con- the campus in thousands of homes, so it ty created this century. There are four
ception of distance education is not just has to be a student-centered approach. keys to its national and international
harmless deviancy. It prevents you from You must figure out what constitutes an success:
reaping the benefits of a revolution in effective home learning environment Very high-quality multimedia
higher education. for the student. learning materials produced by mul-
Those three points are all you need to ti-skilled academic teams. Study mate-
IN U.S.
4. TECHNOLOGY know in order to use distance education rials must be excellent and varied to
HIGHER EDUCATION strategically. Some U.S. universities make the campus in the home a conge-
That is my fourth proposition: that have a long tradition of offering stu- nial university experience.
despite your splendid technological in- dents individual learning wherever they Dedicated personal academic
frastructure, U.S. higher education is are. Back in 1900, the land-grant uni- support. Each Open University student
not using technology effectively. The versities tried to put the university as has his or her own tutor for each course,

CHANGEJULYIAUGUST
1991 15
one of OUs 7,000 adjunct faculty.
They comment on and mark the stu-
dents assignments,hold group meet-
ings, and give support by phone and
e-mail.
Slick logistics. Each individual stu-
dent must receive the right materials
and information at the right time. With
over 100,000students, that requires
careful attention to detail.
A strong research base. When
thousands of students use the materials
for each course and millions of people
view each TV program, the content must
be academically up-to-date. Thanks to
economies of scale, the Open University
has the resources to move the academic
paradigms steadily forward.
In summary, focusing on individual
learning offers more than remote-
group teaching. Take flexibili-
ty. The focus on the individual
gives students flexibility over
where and when they study,
whether in the home, the work-
place, the commuter train, or
the airport lounge. Through
this convenience and flexibili-
ty you can reach large num-
bers, so access improves. And
because you reach large num-
bers you get economies of
scale, reducing study costs for
all concerned. You also get
higher academic quality-but
thats another argument.
What I dont understand,
because it is all so clear to me,
is why U.S. educators dont
see it that way too. After all,
the great contribution of the
United States to the advance-
ment of humankind has been
to stress the importance of the
individual. Why, in distance education,
are you so fixated on the collectivity in
the classroom?
My hypothesis is that U.S. higher ed-
ucation values teaching more than
learning. You may have other hypothe-
ses. Perhaps its the pressure from the
big telecom operators who want to sell
you lots of bandwidth. You cant expect
them to vote for targeting individuals at
home, just as you cant expect landlords
who rent apartments to students near the
campus to vote for any kind of distance
education. Turkeys dont vote for
Thanksgiving either. In time, Im sure
you will come round. As your lively
16
ambassador in London, Admiral Crowe,
said recently, The United States will
always do the right thing-after having
exhausted all other possibilities.
5. THEKNOWLEDGE
MEDIA
Time to move to my fifth proposi-
tion, which throws a new light on every-
thing Ive said. Proposition 5 holds that
the knowledge media change the rela-
tionship between people and knowledge
in a fundamental way. Knowledge me-
dia is a term coined by Marc Eisen-
stadt to denote the convergence of
computing, telecommunications, and
the cognitive sciences.
Other people have coined other
terms: telematics, the information su-
perhighway, multimedia, and so on.
Eisenstadts term challenges us as aca-
demics because he believes that the
combination of present technologies
with what we know about learning will
change fundamentally the relationship
between people and knowledge. Thats
because the knowledge media are about
the capturing, storing, imparting, shar-
ing, accessing, creating, combining, and
synthesizing of knowledge. The knowl-
edge media are not just a technical for-
mat, such as CD-ROM or computer
conferencing, but the whole presenta-
tional style, the user interface, the ac-
cessibility, the interactivity.
All universities are asking them-
selves what the knowledge media mean
for them. Academics effervesce with in-
dividual projects. State governors
dream of merging higher education into
a great virtual university. Will it ever
be real? To make it real, we need to un-
derstand that the knowledge media give
us the opportunity to switch the spot-
light from the classroom and teaching
back to the individual and learning.
Universities are discovering, to their
amazement, that with good learning
materials, effective networks, and prop-
er support, students can learn better at
home than in class.
6. NEEDED:TECHNOLOGY
STRATEGIES
That leads nicely into my final
proposition. We will fumble a huge
opportunity for academic renewal and
crisis evasion if we respond
to the knowledge media in
our usual academic way. That
is, by letting individual facul-
ty members or their depart-
ments do their own thing. We
need universitywide technol-
ogy strategies.
Why? Because the laissez-
faire approach, far from en-
hancing a universitys com-
petitive advantage by giving it
cost advantage and valuable
distinctiveness, is likely to
increase costs and create ex-
cessive differentiation that stu-
dents will find burdensome.
Universities now admit the
need to increase productivity;
witness last years remarkable
statements by the faculty sen-
ates of the state universities of
California and New York.
Technology can raise pro-
ductivity, but only through a reorgani-
zation of the teaching-learning process
based on the development of a technol-
ogy infrastructure. I insisted that tech-
nology was more than hardware with
blinking lights. That also applies to
technology infrastructure. Taking a uni-
versitywide approach to the moderniza-
tion of the teaching and learning
process is a more important technologi-
cal change than asking the IT center to
choose the perfect computing platform
and impose it on everyone.
Lets take some examples. First, I
presume you all agree that, except in
some highly specialized areas like com-
 The great contribution of the United States to the advancement of humankind
has been to stress the importance of the individual. Why, in distance education,
are you so fixated on the collectivity in the classroom?
puter-aided design, undergraduate com-
puter labs are yesterdays answer. Fac-
ulty will no longer put up with sharing
workstations; why should students?
However, once students have their own
laptops, you owe it to them to maximize
their usefulness. That means organizing
network access from on and off campus.
It means creating some commonality
between the various computing envi-
ronments students will encounter as
they progress from course to course.
These are not easy issues. At the
Open University, we have already gone
through several generations of comput-
er conferencing software. To discover
the best systems for students, faculty
must have latitude to try new offerings
in their courses. However, there must be
a pan-university mechanism to compare
results and generalize the best solutions
as each technology becomes routine.
Work by Bob Zemsky has shown, for
example, that systematic approaches to
course offering and scheduling can
yield greater productivity with no sacri-
fice of quality. But again, this approach
has to be taken across the board by the
whole university if it is to have any ef-
fect on productivity.
Another reason for a strategic ap-
proach is to bring along the students.
They are, in the mass, a conservative
lot who are skeptical of new approach-
es. Listening to lectures is less work-
and requires less initiative-than
participating on a team in a studio
course or working through distance-
learning materials. Here again, as you
will readily grasp, an institutionwide
approach is the only way to get the
mass of students to engage fully the
new methods.
The whole purpose of using technol-
ogy in teaching is to give better value to
students. Choices must be pragmatic
because technologies change rapidly. A
commitment to a particular technology
for its own sake is unlikely to yield sus-
tainable advantage. So we must assess
the potential of technology in a generic
manner. A key generic decision con-
CHANGEJULY/AUGUST
1997
cerns distance education. Earlier I high-
lighted the differences between its two
traditions and, I am sure, convinced you
of my view that the individual learning
approach has more answers to our cur-
rent crisis than remote-group teaching.
Pursuit of an individual-learning ap-
proach helps create a conceptual frame-
work for a technology strategy.
The basis of a technology strategy is
to identify, in light of the universitys
core competencies, the students tech-
nology-based instruction will serve and
the programs it will deliver. Once the
basic framework of a technology strate-
gy is set, help is available for selecting
the most appropriate media for particu-
lar applications. Tony Bates, one of the
most sensible commentators on the use
of technology in higher education, sug-
gests seven criteria for decision-mak-
ing, summarized in the acronym
ACTIONS:
Access is the most difficult issue be-
cause technology may cost students
money. However, the knowledge media
are making geography less and less of a
discriminator.
Costs of media vary. Useful data are
now available on the variation of unit
costs with student numbers.
Teaching and learning is less of a
discriminator than access and costs,
simply because people are good at
learning from a variety of media.
Interactivity and user-friendliness
are important, but remember that inter-
activity is a very slippery word. Most
so-called interactive technologies arent
really very interactive.
Organizational issues are key. Un-
fortunately, the forms of technology-
based teaching that pose the least threat
to current organizationalpractice also
hold least promise for cutting costs and
yielding valuable distinctiveness.That
is a crunch issue.
Novelty is sexy and attracts soft
money. Make sure any novel technolo-
gy will still be cost-effective after the
soft money runs out.
Speed is important. Windows of op-
portunity can suddenly slam shut on
your fingers. If you wait for a fully vali-
dated technology strategy youll never
do anything.
THEPURPOSE
OF STRATEGY
Let me conclude my discussion of
technology strategy by reminding you
what strategy is. Your dictionary, Web-
sters, defines it as the art of devising
or employing plans or stratagems to-
ward a goal, and a stratagem as any
artifice or trick for obtaining an advan-
tage. This provides a nice reminder
that, especially in universities, the full
frontal attack may not be the best ap-
proach. My dictionary, Oxford, defines
a strategy as the art of projecting and
directing the larger movements and op-
erations of a campaign. Those defini-
tions are complementary. Either way,
the word strategy has military conno-
tations and derives from the Greek word
for a general.
We are engaged in a battle. The
worlds universities are in crisis, as-
sailed by challenges of access, cost,
and flexibility. The United States has
the worlds strongest university sys-
tem, and the world looks to it for lead-
ership. Yet your system is wedded to
teaching technologies that make it dif-
ficult for you to respond successfully
to the crisis.
I beg you not to confuse means with
ends. The traditional classroom of the
campus university has had a long run as
the preferred means for achieving the
ultimate goals of the university. But the
classroom model is approaching its
sell-by date. It is not the means that
are important, but the ends to which the
university aspires. They are the appeal
to reason and evidence, the link be-
tween conversation and community, the
synergy between research and learn-
ing-in short, the academic mode of
thinking and working. That is the
essence of the university. A good tech-
nology strategy can give you the means
to continue to achieve those timeless
purposes in a new millennium. El
17