1 / 22

Looking for a model of contemporary university

Looking for a model of contemporary university. Krzysztof Leja Faculty of Management and Economics Gdansk University of Technology. International Conference DRIVERS FROM HIGHER TO QUALITY EDUCATION, Warsaw, June 18-19, 2010. Agenda. Introduction Short diagnosis of Polish HEIs

elana
Download Presentation

Looking for a model of contemporary university

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Looking for a modelof contemporary university Krzysztof Leja Faculty of Management and Economics Gdansk University of Technology International Conference DRIVERS FROM HIGHER TO QUALITY EDUCATION, Warsaw, June 18-19, 2010

  2. Agenda • Introduction • Short diagnosis of Polish HEIs • Key drivers to change • flexibility • coopetition • N=1, R=G (Prahalad†, Krishnan) • 1st = 2nd = 3rd mission • Conclusions

  3. INTRODUCTION

  4. Data

  5. Revenue in %’1995-2008 80/20 formulais correct

  6. Demography for Poland - age19-24 Source: http://www.stat.gov.pl/gus/45_5744_PLK_HTML.htm, 12.02.2009 r.

  7. DIAGNOSIS

  8. Diagnosis 1 • Hierarchy, disciplinary, collegialism, autonomy but not accountability (?), rectorispresident, primeministry and marshall of parliament, but thepowerisweakorstrong? • HEIsare not ivorytowers but not entrepreneurialorknowledge-basedorganizationsyet? • Lack of diversity of universitymission & strategy • Rigidunits: faculties/institutes/chairs (goodpractice - Warsaw School of Economics)

  9. Diagnosis 2 • The best students doesn’t want to share their knowledge. • Statistical data of students and alumnies are available only. Data on staff and finances are unavailable – on the institutional level. • LLL is limited to post-diploma courses

  10. Diagnosis 3 - equalizer by de Boer Traditional university Entrepreneurial university state regulations – SR; academic self governance - AG stakeholder quidance – SG; managerial governance – MG competition - C J. Fried, University interfaces, www.donau-uni.ac.at, 4.03.2007

  11. Diagnosis 4- equalizer(2)Poland’ 1990 & 2010 1990 2010 state regulations – SR; academic self governance - AG stakeholder quidance – SG; managerial governance – MG competition - C

  12. Diagnosis 5 • Morphostasis = keeping form and shape [of university] the same (or almost the same) • Why is morphogenesis NOT attractive for university? What about double loop learning? • What did we do in Polish HE? What are we doing ? What shall we do ? • SIMPLE ANSWER IS: 3 x A LOT

  13. Diagnosis 6 - transformation 1990-2007 Fromelite to massivehighereducation(quantity≠quality), but if we understandquality as ‘fitness for purpose’ – thegoalisdone 2008-2010 National QualificationFrameworks – morphogenesis 2010- Changing HE system is not veryeasy so Waiting for theresults but itneeds time and money

  14. KEY DRIVERS OF CHANGE

  15. Fromtraditionalorganization to… Rector Senate Central administration and support staff Organization axis Team A Coordination axis Team B Faculty I Faculty II Faculty IV Faculty III Team C Source: Wissema J., Technostarters, What and how?, p. 52

  16. …University of 3rd generationprof.J. Wissema Board of trustees Board Support staff for the bord Organization axis Coordination axis x Team B Team A Team C Team D y University common support staff Source: Wissema J., Technostarters, What and how?, p. 52

  17. Key drivers of changecoopetition • University’s integration – almost all of HEIs aspire to the Ivy League ( The future of Europen universities- renaissance or decay? – report by Lambert & Butler 2006) • University Networks, spin-offs, etc. • Domestic and international mobility

  18. Keydrivers of changeN=1, R=G • Drivingco-cretedvaluethrough global networks – idea of Prahalad† & Krishnan 2008 • Domesticmobility – problem in Poland & internationalization (only 0,8% of studentsin Poland areforeigners ) • From 80/20 to 50/50 (Edu/R+D; public/non-public funds)

  19. Keydrivers of change3rd mission Socially university responsibility + Public responsibility for university = Co-creation of the value addedboth by university & stakeholders

  20. Conclusions University model needsreflection • Culturesand organizations (Hofstede) – status quo, not to discuss (point A) • Imagesof organization (Morgan) – do we knowwhere we want to go? (point B) • Organization first informatizationnext – if we know A and B, we shouldconcentrate on theway

  21. Conclusion • HEIsneedsstrategy - 2 strategiesin Poland but…Iamafraidpoliticians will choosethe third way • University model (transformation) needstheoreticbackground and anticipation FLEXIBILITY and OPENESS • To solvetheproblemsin HE I suggestplayingchessormaths…

  22. Thank you for attention

More Related