1 / 17

Jim Port J M Consulting Ltd

JISC ICT STRATEGIC WORKSHOP Physical Infrastructure for Teaching and Learning: Current status Future needs Management issues. Jim Port J M Consulting Ltd. J M Consulting work. 2001 Study of Science Research infrastructure. Published by OST www.ost.gov.uk/whats_new.htm

pearl
Download Presentation

Jim Port J M Consulting Ltd

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. JISC ICT STRATEGIC WORKSHOPPhysical Infrastructure forTeaching and Learning: Current status Future needs Management issues Jim Port J M Consulting Ltd

  2. J M Consulting work 2001 Study of Science Research infrastructure. Published by OST www.ost.gov.uk/whats_new.htm 2002 Studies of infrastructure for Teaching and Learning and Arts and Humanities Research (HEFCE June 2002/31, 35) Based on case studies and visits to 23 universities and colleges covering full range of types Financial Strategies Costs of non-traditional modes Teaching Quality Enhancement Committee

  3. Background • Teaching and learning in higher education makes a vital contribution to the UK economy and society • Teaching is the largest activity in HE – 60% of academic staff time and 70% of space • Resources for teaching have been seriously squeezed over a decade of efficiency gains (see graph) • Big changes in student population, T&L methods and technologies • New requirement for HEIs to take strategic responsibility for their infrastructure

  4. Developments in T&L • Growth in student numbers • Diversity of the student population • Rise of new subjects (health professions, media creative arts etc) • Changing QA and QE regimes • Changes in schools and in expectations and abilities of pupils • ICT • Demands of stakeholders including employers, professional J M Consulting Infrastructure report • Government agendas (White Paper)

  5. Stages of e-Learning and requirements

  6. Strategic challenges for institutions in teaching and teaching quality • Enthusing students • Dealing with a diverse range of student needs • Responding to new technologies and modes • Responding to a changing staff mix and the need to adapt traditional practices • Pressures to demonstrate efficiency • New delivery – e.g. work-based learning • Staff development and rewards • Partnerships and collaboration • Maintaining an international perspective TQEC report

  7. What space will be needed for T&L in future? • no “business model” of what constitutes efficient or effective teaching, or of how it will or should change • no “specification” of how (e.g.) a degree in History should be taught, or what it should cost, or what infrastructure it needs. • So cannot answer from a strategic academic perspective A pragmatic approach • What infrastructure do we have now? • Whats wrong with it? • How does it need to change for current purpose? • What will drive future changes? • How can we manage it better in future?

  8. Facts and figures Physical infrastructure is £26bn buildings plus £8bn contents • Well-known maintenance backlogs (£3.5bn) • 40% of HE estate is unsuitable (EMS) • 50% is 1960,70s and nearly life-expired • Legislative non-compliance • Development constraints Equipment is important but difficult to quantify or value Buildings can be split by cost as: • 60% for teaching • 34% for science research • 6% for arts research Note importance of plant and services

  9. Findings: remedial needs of estate 3 categories • Generic Institutional Infrastructure • Well-found laboratory (or equiv) • Advanced (capacity-building) • Generic Institutional is largest element: across 12 institutions investment required is average 30% of asset value of buildings – range 5% to 45% • This is £8bn across sector - £4.6bn for teaching • Plus backlog on classroom equipment (£0.5bn) • Plus ICT and WP investment for teaching

  10. Findings – future needs • On-going maintenance – current spend of 1.3% or 1.8% of asset value is probably ok if no backlogs • for renewal and replacement institutions need to plan to spend 4-5% of asset value on an annual basis. Evidence for this: HEFCE study – 60 year lifetime with two major refurbishments and some modest continuing spend • Sector is actually spending about 2.5-3%

  11. What could change space needs radically? • The end of the traditional campus (no sign) • Dramatic growth in student numbers in HEIs (no funding) • Major change in number or style of institutions (slow) • Substantial changes in space utilisation (if only!) • Significant changes in pedagogy and teaching styles (slow) • Big shifts in the learning blend (I.e. mix of modes – lecture, labs, electronic, simulations, work-based etc) - happening • Developments in ICT and related technology - happening We had to conclude that NONE of these was likely to be a significant driver of change in the 5-10 year horizon

  12. What can we assume about change? • Much of the growth will be in FECs or off-campus • Needs for traditional learning space will rise more slowly and be off-set by improved utilisation • Institutions will need to be more flexible in their use of infrastructure and to value and manage it more carefully than they have in the past • The pace of change will be driven by what academic staff can manage, not by what technology can deliver • But e-Learning is on the up • Recent governement policy (research consortia, mergers) • Cost pressures (hardening attitudes to use of estate) • Widening participation and new mixed modes of teaching

  13. Why do we have these serious investment backlogs? • Capital schemes have rewarded growth (e.g. JIF, SRIF, Poor Estates, Follett etc) • Multiplicity of bidding schemes and directed initiatives have not encouraged strategic planning • Research funding below full cost • Decline in T unit of resource • The 1960s and 70s bulge of buildings • Lack of long-term asset management strategy • Generally low priority and status of commercial business management skills • High priority given to immediate needs over infrastructure • But culture varies greatly between institutions (many new universities have been forced to be more radical and managerial – and some claim no estates problems)

  14. A few myths: (non-solutions) • Its much better in the USA (not really) • Private capital (limited applicability) • Borrowing (risky) • Fund-raising (needs time and big investment) • More efficient utilisation (some scope) • Collaboration (some scope) • Past capital schemes should have sorted this (even JIF/SRIF - £2bn only affected 5% of infrastructure) • It’s all due to poor funding (some institutions have done much better than others – note the 5% examples)

  15. Recommendations • Policy initiative on institutional responsibility for whole-life asset management (backed by a funding councils initiative to produce institutional strategies) • Government remedial investment programme (like SRIF for teaching and arts as well as science research, triggered by institutional strategies for long-term sustainability of assets related to academic strategies )

  16. The futureHE needs to develop: A business model for T&L Integrated academic and financial/estates strategies The new Academy for T&L in Higher Education The new Leadership Foundation A highly-professional approach to commercial property and asset management Full economic cost recovery on research and other projects

More Related