Topic 1 xtra note

jiscinfonet.ac.uk http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/whole-infokit/?infokit=219
Change management
Change is endemic in the education sector. The pressures for change come from all sides: globalisation, changes
to the funding and regulatory regime, doing more with less, improving the quality of student learning and the
learning experience, and the pace of change is ever increasing. Living with change and managing change is an
essential skill for all.
Change is also difficult. There are many different types of change and different approaches to managing change. It
is a topic subject to more than its fair share of management fads, quick fixes and guaranteed win approaches.
Finding an approach that suits you and your situation goes to the heart of being an effective and professional
manager in the education sector. We hope that this resource will help you in this challenge.
The following diagram describes the general route through the materials in the Kit:
Route through the Change Management infoKit
This infoKit was originally developed in 2006 out of a HEFCE Good Management Practice Project led by the
University of Luton (now the University of Bedfordshire) entitled ‘Effecting Change in Higher Education’. The
project team consulted widely on aspects of change in the sector and put together theories, approaches and tools
that resonated with them and with those they talked to about their experiences of the practical difficulties of
managing change.
The ‘Effecting Change’ team summarise their findings by the following observations:
There are no easy solutions
Adapt processes to suit the change intended

Change requires teamwork and leadership (and the two are related)
Work with the culture (even when you want to change it)
Communicate, communicate, communicate
In the 2014 update we have amended the core model and associated resources with more evidence-based
research from projects involving large-scale change, focusing on: organisational efficiency, the student
experience, business and community engagement and environmental performance.
Aspects of change
Change usually involves three aspects: people,
processes and culture as shown in the figure.
Often the emphasis has been on the processes
– get the processes right and everything else
will follow. In this resource we have attempted
to redress the balance to acknowledge the
importance of each aspect.
There are no easy solutions or quick fixes in the
infoKit but we have attempted to give you some
pathways through the vast array of approaches
and tools available by suggesting activities you
may undertake at different stages of your
change lifecycle.
This infoKit assumes you will be approaching
your change activity as a project and we make
frequent reference to the P3M suite of
resources on project, programme and portfolio management for guidance on a structured approach. We also
reference the infoKits on Risk Management and Process Improvement.
Templates
View or download our templates from Google Drive™
Business Case Assessment Form
Presumably you are reading this because you have identified a need for change in your organisation. If you have
come to Jisc infoNet then it is also possible that the change has to do with the use of information and learning
technology within your organisation although the guidance given in this infoKit can be applied to any type of
change project. Alternatively you may have identified a need to improve some aspect of your business processes
in which case the infoKit on Process Improvement can help you identify what needs to be done.
Before you begin a major change project, with a particular end goal in sight, you need to know where you are
starting from. You might want to think about ways of assessing your baseline position. A baseline is a start point
against which you can show that your project has delivered a tangible improvement. This may imply a measurable
improvement in time, cost, quality etc but qualitative evidence that the experience of certain stakeholders has
improved can be equally valid. By developing a baseline you ensure that you understand the current state of play
before you try to change it.
The benefits of capturing a baseline include:
Getting project scope right – baselining gives you an opportunity to refine the scope of your project.
Sometimes you will realise you cannot solve a particular problem without tackling one or more related
issues

Identifying project stakeholders – baselining can help avoid you finding a “skeleton in the closet” further
down the line in the form of a stakeholder you should have consulted but didn’t
Managing and communicating project scope – baselining helps you manage stakeholder expectations of
your project. You may need to make it clear that certain issues are out of scope if you are not to disappoint
certain stakeholders
Challenging myths – sometimes baselining activity can reveal myths and fallacies that need to be
challenged before you can move forward. Often they relate to unspoken assumptions about what aspects of
processes and system can and can’t be changed: remember “We’ve always done it that way” is neither a
reason nor a justification
Showing evidence of improvement – you cannot show how far you have travelled unless you know where
you started
You may already know your baseline and have already developed a Business Case for the change – if not you
may wish to view specific guidance on developing a Business Case for a Change Project . Our Project
Management infoKit provides a template for preparing a Business Case. You will need to be clear about how the
proposed change fits in with your institutional Mission and Strategy.
Whether you are still assessing your baseline or have begun moving forward with a change programme, it is
equally important to know what you are already doing well. The section on Appreciative Inquiry offers a means of
doing just that.
Tools
Many of the tools used for Process Review can also be helpful at the stage of identifying exactly what you need to
change and why. Listed below are a number of tools that may help clarify your thinking and allow you to define
your project more accurately:
5 Whys – helps analyse a problem
Assumption Surfacing and Testing – challenges the ‘inevitable and preordained’ and might help you
generate new ideas
Backward Planning – can help generate a mind-set that the change can be done
Change Variables – allows you to assess the impact of implementing the change to a greater or lesser
extent
Clarimission – can help you clarify and communicate your goals
Clariscope – develops clarity about outcomes and generates ideas about how they can be achieved
Prioritisation Matrix – helps you to take better decisions in a transparent way
7S Model – allows you to see how changes in one area may affect others
SMART Targets – will help you to monitor whether the desired results are being achieved
The Appreciative Inquiry approach is beginning to demonstrate to academic staff that there is much
that is positive in what they do and in their experiences. It has also provided a context in which they
are not being ‘told what is wrong and how to fix it’, but a supportive environment in which to try out
ideas.
Queen’s University Belfast’s Assessment and Feedback project final report
Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is a technique for approaching change in a positive way. It can be used to gain an
understanding of the baseline situation you are starting from and as a basis for action planning to move forward
building on what you are already doing well. The approach is about focusing on the positive as opposed to
identifying “what is wrong and what you need to do to fix it”.

The approach was developed by Cooperrider and Whitney (2005) who devised a 4D cycle of Discovery, Dream,
Design and Destiny with your “affirmative topic of choice” at the centre.
The approach is very flexible and non-prescriptive and the timescale and level of formality at each stage of the
cycle will vary depending on the topic and organisational context.
The diagram below shows how Queen’s University Belfast used Appreciative Inquiry to enhance assessment and
feedback practice across the organisation taking educational principles for assessment and feedback as its
affirmative topic of choice.
To illustrate how the approach worked in practice Queen’s University Belfast has published the appreciative
inquiry script that it used in discussions around assessment and feedback practice.
Let’s focus on these positives…Think of a time when you experienced assessment and/or feedback
and it was a positive experience. It may not have started that way, but the outcome was positive for
you. Discovering what worked well in the past reminds us that we can bring about positive
assessment and feedback experiences for ourselves and our students. Building on these
capacities envision how you can position yourself to embrace assessment and feedback in a more
positive way in the future. Identifying what works, imagine what YOU can do in your modules or the
teaching team can undertake to improve assessment and feedback for all.Queen’s University
Belfast’s AI script
Brunel University has developed a novel adaptation of Appreciative Inquiry that it used in reviewing the
management of its course information. Brunel saw the value of AI but realised that when reviewing processes,
people often find it easiest to start by identifying the negative aspects so it combined AI with the work of Edward
de Bono and his Six Thinking Hats. In Brunel’s AI workshops stakeholders released their negative thoughts at the
door by physically writing them down on post-it notes and sticking them to the black hat. This allowed them to see
that the negative views were represented whilst preparing them to move forward and embrace AI. Brunel
University has developed a toolkit for others wishing to try out the technique.
Appreciative Inquiry is one approach to reviewing existing practice that fits well with the culture of the education
sector. Depending on the type of change you are considering there are however many other types of self
evaluation or benchmarking tools that may be of use.
In 2005-2008 Jisc and the HE Academy supported a major programme of benchmarking around technology
enhanced learning followed by a programme of transformation known as “Pathfinder” that paved the way for the
Academy’s current change programmes and services and the lessons learned from these activities are still of
interest.
In the Jisc Course Data programme 87 learning providers completed a self-assessment framework
looking at their state of readiness to implement a standardised approach to managing course
information. The summarised results are interesting but of greater value to each of the
institutions was the dialogue this engendered between parts of the organisation that did not
generally see themselves as part of the same overall process.
The University of Central Lancashire used the Jisc Strategic ICT toolkit to undertake an assessment of its level of
maturity in relation to strategic use of ICT and was surprised to find its score lower than expected. This produced
some interesting dialogue whereby those who were directly involved in the management and delivery of Strategic
ICT felt the results of the strategic ICT toolkit were incorrect and those who were not felt the results were correct.
This led to a change project reviewing governance and communications around strategic ICT as well as
alignment, ownership and responsibility of projects to ensure they were business led. Find out more in the project
case study.

Overviews developed to support the work of Jisc programmes can also be of use in determining how the situation
in your organisation compares with others in the wider sector see for example:
baseline review for the curriculum design programme (2009)
overview of the assessment and feedback landscape (2012)
The Measurement Tools wiki offers a host of tools to support organisations in measuring the things they do – either
in a standalone way or against a predefined set of criteria. If there is not a specific tool that helps you assess your
current state and make plans for moving forward then you might find some of the participatory approaches
suggested in our section on engaging stakeholders of use in devising your own approach.
It is always worth looking for data about the processes under consideration in order to be able to challenge
attitudes that are based on assumption or myth. The managing course information infoKit includes examples of
how the University of Bolton, City University, and Manchester Metropolitan University have all used data about
their curriculum and assessment practices to bring about transformation.
Below are some suggested aspects and questions that you might like to think about and some suggested types of
evidence that you could use for assessing your baseline and evaluating change.
Aspect of
current practice Key questions Types of evidence
Strategy & Policy
What strategies & policies have a bearing on this
topic?
What does the vocabulary used indicate about how
this is approached/perceived?
Where does responsibility/authority sit within the
organisation?
Core institutional
documents
Committee structures
Membership of
relevant committees
Process
How do we do it now?
How does reality match the formal process?
What workarounds are needed and how often?
How long does it take?
Who is involved?
What is the level of take-up where
systems/innovations are optional?
Where are the bottlenecks?
When is information difficult to obtain/not timely?
Process maps
Usage stats
Interviews
SLAs
Infrastructure
What institutional infrastructure supports the activity:
IT
physical estate
support services
Is the infrastructure under/over-used?
Can the infrastructure meet demand at all times?
How well are elements of the infrastructure
integrated?
System inventories
Timetables
Usage stats
Architecture diagrams
User feedback

Stakeholders
What is the level of stakeholder satisfaction?
Are the right stakeholders involved?
Does responsibility/authority sit in the right areas?
Is there effective communication between all
stakeholders?
NSS
Survey data
Interviews
Focus groups
Rich pictures
Aspect of
current practice Key questions Types of evidence
Understanding the nature of the change you wish to effect and the context in which you are working are important
in determining an appropriate strategy. Entering uncharted change territory without some sort of route map puts
you at an immediate disadvantage from the start. One of the first stages in charting the territory is to understand a
little more about the type of change you wish to make (broadly where you want to get to and how you plan to
travel).
There are a number of ways in which change can be categorised, most are related to the extent of the change and
whether it is seen as organic (often characterised as bottom-up) or driven (top-down).
Ackerman (1997) has distinguished between three types of change:
Developmental – May be either planned or emergent; it is first order, or incremental. It is change that
enhances or corrects existing aspects of an organisation, often focusing on the improvement of a skill or
process
Transitional – Seeks to achieve a known desired state that is different from the existing one. It is episodic,
planned and second order, or radical. Much of the organisational change literature is based on this type
Transformational – Is radical or second order in nature. It requires a shift in assumptions made by the
organisation and its members. Transformation can result in an organisation that differs significantly in terms
of structure, processes, culture and strategy. It may, therefore, result in the creation of an organisation that
operates in developmental mode – one that continuously learns, adapts and improves.
Planned versus emergent change
Sometimes change is deliberate, a product of conscious reasoning and actions – planned change. In contrast,
change sometimes unfolds in an apparently spontaneous and unplanned way. This type of change is known as
emergent change. Change can be emergent rather than planned in two ways:
Managers make a number of decisions apparently unrelated to the change that emerges. The change is
therefore not planned. However, these decisions may be based on unspoken, and sometimes unconscious,
assumptions about the organisation, its environment and the future (Mintzberg, 1989) and are, therefore,
not as unrelated as they first seem. Such implicit assumptions dictate the direction of the seemingly
disparate and unrelated decisions, thereby shaping the change process by ‘drift’ rather than by design.
External factors (such as the economy, competitors’ behaviour, and political climate) or internal features
(such as the relative power of different interest groups, distribution of knowledge, and uncertainty) influence
the change in directions outside the control of managers. Even the most carefully planned and executed
change programme will have some emergent impacts.
This highlights two important aspects of managing change.
The need to identify, explore and if necessary challenge the assumptions that underlie managerial
decisions.

Understanding that organisational change is a process that can be facilitated by perceptive and insightful
planning and analysis and well crafted, sensitive implementation phases, while acknowledging that it can
never be fully isolated from the effects of serendipity, uncertainty and chance (Dawson, 1996).
An important (arguably the central) message of recent management of change literature is that organisation-level
change is not fixed or linear in nature but contains an important emergent element as identified in the section
on complexity theory.
Episodic versus continuous change
Another distinction is between episodic and continuous change. Episodic change, according to Weick and Quinn
(1999), is ‘infrequent, discontinuous and intentional’. Sometimes termed ‘radical’ or ‘second order’ change,
episodic change often involves replacement of one strategy or programme with another.
Continuous change, in contrast, is ‘ongoing, evolving and cumulative’. Also referred to as ‘first order’ or
‘incremental’ change, continuous change is characterised by people constantly adapting and editing ideas they
acquire from different sources. At a collective level these continuous adjustments made simultaneously across
units can create substantial change.
Proposed change
The distinction between episodic and
continuous change helps clarify thinking about
an organisation’s future development and
evolution in relation to its long-term goals. Few
organisations are in a position to decide
unilaterally that they will adopt an exclusively
continuous change approach. They can,
however, capitalise upon many of the principles
of continuous change by engendering the
flexibility to accommodate and experiment with
everyday contingencies, breakdowns,
exceptions, opportunities and unintended
consequences that punctuate organisational life (Orlikowski, 1996).
Using these characteristics proposed changes can be placed along two scales: radical – incremental and core –
peripheral (Pennington 2003) Plotting the character of a proposed change along these scales can provide a
sense of how difficult the introduction of any particular initiative might be and how much disturbance to the status
quo it might generate. Radical changes to an institution’s or department’s core business will normally generate
high levels of disturbance; incremental changes to peripheral activities are often considered to be unexceptional
and can be accommodated as a matter of course, especially if the group involved has a successful past record of
continuous improvement.
There are many different models and theories of change as change defies simple attempts to categorise and
organise. The last few decades have seen a number of popular theories.
It is helpful to have a model or a framework within which to operate as this can help ensure that most aspects of
the proposed change are considered. Which model best suits your circumstances depends in part on institutional
culture and personal preferences and you will find that any of the models contain similar elements presented in
slightly different ways.
Historical perspectives
This section identifies some of the key theories that have influenced change management thinking over the past
100 years.

Scientific management (1910s)
Promoted change as part of achieving efficiency due to better performing the task. Employers having specific
responsibilities for achieving better performance and the method encouraged the scientific selection, training, and
development of workers. Taylor, who laid the foundations of the Scientific Management sought to achieve change
by using the ‘carrot and stick’ approach – by connecting performance to rewards.
Classical school (1910s)
Listed the duties of a manager as planning, organising, commanding employees, coordinating activities, and
controlling performance. Change would be achieved through specialization of work, unity of command, and
coordination of activities.
The individual perspective school (1920s)
Change can be achieved by changing the behaviour of individuals.
Human relations school (1920s)
Change (influencing performance) by changing informal roles and norms and understanding the attitudes and
feelings of workers.
The group dynamics school (1940s)
Change can be achieved by changing the groups and teams, rather than the individuals.
Bureaucracy (1940s)
Change through adherence to procedures, policies. Rationality, uniformity, and consistency in management lead to
equitable treatment for all employees.
Leadership (1950s)
Stressed the importance of groups having both social task leaders; differentiated between Theory X and Y
management.
Decision theory (1960s)
Suggested that individuals “satisfice” when they make decisions. Participation in decision-making an enabler of
change.
Socio-technical school (1960s)
Change introduced through technology and work groups.
Systems theory (1970s)
Represented organizations as open systems with inputs, transformations, outputs, and feedback. Two
approaches: hard systems and soft systems.
Contingency theory (1980s)
Change can be successful and drive the organisation forward, if there is a fit between organization processes and
characteristics of the situation.
Chaos and complexity theory (1990s)

Organisations viewed as complex adaptive systems. Effects of change difficult to predict. Emphasis on creating
the conditions for beneficial change to occur.
Olson and Eoyang (2001) have compared traditional change to the Complex Adaptive System (CAS) model of
change based on complexity theory.
Traditional Complex Adaptive System
Few variables determine outcomes Innumerable variables determine outcome
The whole is equal to the sum of the parts
(reductionist)
The whole is different from the sum of the parts (holistic)
Direction is determined by design and the power of
a few leaders
Direction is determined by emergence and the
participation of many people
Individual or system behaviour is knowable,
predictable and controllable
Individual or system behaviour is unknowable,
unpredictable and uncontrollable
Causality is linear: every effect can be traced to a
specific cause
Causality is mutual: Every cause is also an effect, and
every effect is also a cause
Relationships are directional Relationships are empowering
All systems are essentially the same Each system is unique
Efficiency and reliability are measures of value Responsiveness to the environment is the measure of
value
Decisions are based on facts and data Decisions are based on tensions and patterns
Leaders are experts and authorities Leaders are facilitators and supporters
Having read this far you will no doubt recognise some of the key characteristics of your college or university
environment. Hopefully you will be reassured to know that this is not unique. Others have to operate in similar
situations and change, though difficult, is achievable. Olson and Eoyang have also set out some of the questions
you need to be asking if you are to lead successful change in a Complex Adaptive System.
Leadership Role Question
Set few specifications by identifying what needs to be addressed and
leaving others to decide how to proceed
What minimum specifications will lead
to productive outcomes?
Distribute control – empower others How can I help? What do you need?
Generate a sense of urgency What do we need to do to meet the
deadline?
Monitor and regulate the pace of change What’s missing? What can’t we ignore?
Set the organisational direction Why are we here? What makes us
unique?
Explore contradictions, encourage different viewpoints How else might we think about this?
Accept a certain level of internal conflict and differences What are you holding back?
Raise tough questions What do you really think? Why do we
have to do it like that?
Encourage diversity Who else needs to be involved?

Scan the external environment What are the innovations out there and
how will they affect us?
Encourage feedback How am I doing? How are we doing?
Link communities of practice What professional networks do you
use?
Loosen or tighten networks Is information flow optimal?
Encourage learning What are your questions? Where might
we look for answers?
Leadership Role Question
In reality change, especially large scale change, defies logical rules and simple management actions. Complexity
theory and a view of organisations as ‘complex adaptive systems’, attempts to consider some of those realities
and arguably provides a better model for change in an education setting (see for example Lewin and Regine
(1999), Olson and Eoyang (2001)).
Most textbooks focus heavily on techniques and procedures for long-term planning, on the needs
for visions and missions, on the importance and the means of securing strongly shared cultures, on
the equation of success with consensus, consistency, uniformity and order. [However, in complex
environments] the real management task is that of coping with and even using unpredictability,
clashing counter-cultures, disensus, contention, conflict, and inconsistency. In short the tasks that
justifies the existence of all managers has to do with instability, irregularity, difference and disorder.
Stacey (1996)
Stacey identifies the following propositions as the basis for complexity theory:
All organisations are webs of non-linear feedback loops connected to other people and organisations by
webs of non-linear feedback loops.
Such non-linear feedback systems are capable of operating in states of stable and unstable equilibrium, or
in the borders between these states, that is far from equilibrium, in bounded instability at the edge of chaos.
All organisations are paradoxes. They are pulled towards stability by the forces of integration, maintenance
controls, human desires for security and certainty and adaptation to the environment on the one hand. They
are also pulled towards the opposite extreme of unstable equilibrium by the forces of division and
decentralisation, human desires for excitement and innovation and isolation from the environment.
If the organisation gives in to the pull of stability it fails because it becomes ossified and cannot change
easily. If it gives in to the pull to instability it disintegrates. Success lies in sustaining an organisation at the
border between stability and instability. This is a state of chaos, a difficult to maintain dissipative structure.
The dynamics of the successful organisation are therefore those of irregular cycles and discontinuous
trends, falling within qualitative patterns, fuzzy but recognizable categories taking the form of archetypes
and templates.
Because of its own internal dynamic, a successful organisation faces completely unknowable specific
futures.
Agents within the system cannot be in control of its long-term future, nor can they install specific
frameworks to make it successful nor can they apply step-by-step analytical reasoning or planning or
ideological controls to long term development. Agents within the system can only do these things in relation
to the short term.

Long term development is a spontaneous self-organising process from which new strategic directions may
emerge. Spontaneous self-organisation is political interaction and learning in groups. Managers have to
pursue reasoning by analogy.
In this way managers create and discover the environments and the long-term futures of the organisations.
The general approach can be visualized using the Stacey agreement vs certainty matrix:
Stacey Agreement vs
Certainty Matrix
Organisational Development
promotes the notion that a
successful change is a planned
change and that monitoring of
internal and external influences
needs to be conducted on a
continuous basis. The diagram
below shows some of the factors
involved and the model proposes
that there is an iterative process
of diagnosis, involvement, further
diagnosis, change, evaluation
and reinforcement.
Already the situation is looking
complex. We may be trying to
effect a change at any level from individual to whole organisation. The Pugh OD Matrix considers some of the
structural and contextual factors involved as a basis for moving forward.
The Organisational Development approach recognises much of the complexity of our organisations and the need
for an iterative change process but is nonetheless based on a presumption that a cycle based on careful analysis
and planning will deliver a predictable and logical outcome.

A Causal Model of Organisational Performance and Change – W Warner Burke & George H Litwin,
Journal of Management, Vol 18, No. 3, 523-545 (1992)
Having understood the type of change you wish to make the second part of charting the ‘territory’ is to understand
the lie of the land (the culture and political environment in which you are travelling) which will help you avoid the
steep climbs and major obstacles where possible and work with the lines of least resistance.
There are two aspects of the issue of culture and change. Firstly, the importance of working with the existing
culture when seeking to effect any change; and secondly, how to go about changing the culture itself. Both require
shrewd and effective leadership.
When asked ‘what is culture?’ staff in the sector subscribed almost unanimously to the common definition of
culture as being ‘the way we do things around here’. Culture involves both the explicit way of working – the formal
systems and processes in place and how they operate, and the tacit level of operation – the informal and semi-
formal networks and other activities that people employ to get things done and by-pass, subvert or seek to
influence the more formal processes.
Culture provides the context for our working lives and defines the standards by which we expect to be judged and
the processes and procedures by which we expect to be involved in the activities which affect us. When dealing
with change it’s important to recognise that different institutions have different cultures and that within institutions
different areas and different academic subjects also have their own way of doing things – their own cultures.
Larger departments will contain their own sub-cultures. Thus it is impossible to talk about a generic culture in post
compulsory education.
Culture can be transmitted by:

The philosophy of the institution – themes like equity and diversity, widening participation, striving for
excellence in teaching; research reputation etc.
The mission statement
The criteria for evaluating and rewarding performance, job progression etc.
The approach to change which is adopted
The way in which leaders act
Culture is also transmitted in the informal history of the organisation that is shared in stories and legends about
key people and events that have affected the organisation.
Lessons learned
Some of those who have effected change in the education sector have noted a few lessons related to the culture.
Organisational cultures – change management
The infoKit on ‘Creating a Managed Learning Environment’ pays a lot of attention to Understanding your
Organisation and defines the following types of organisational culture:
Collegiate
There is a dual structure of administrative and academic management which results in parallel committee
structures which can act as a black hole for decision making
Unclear reporting lines and poor coordination, strong local cultures, agendas and identifiers
Academic status is perceived as higher than support or administrative functions
There are strong subject-specific allegiances with academics often feeling a stronger alliance to their
subject area and external networks than the institutional mission
Decision making occurs through committees, which can be slow and lack cohesion
Activities tend to be driven from the ground, primarily linked to local interests
Classic structure of old universities particularly those with more of a research focus
Bureaucratic
Characterised by strong central management and top-down decision making
The hierarchy of control and decision making is clearly established in the administrative and management
structures of the institutions
Management roles are clearly defined as career progressions, heads of department, deans etc are
appointed through an interview process to tenured positions
Central management have strong control over the direction of the strategic priorities for the institution
Commonly found in FE colleges and new universities
Innovative
Institutions with flexible structures geared to respond and adapt quickly to external factors and influences
Strong culture of change and innovation with frequent changes in directions of activities and focus of
interest
Often characterised by a matrix structure of responsibilities by both subject area and functional activity
(where the latter will often be structured around the identified strategic priorities)
Typically activities focused around particular projects and associated project teams

Characteristic of some new universities and colleges but also present within the old universities within the
sub-structure of the institution through enterprise centres and research centres which are externally funded
Enterprise
More closely aligned to traditional businesses and industry approaches
Acutely aware of financial mechanism and processes and alert to external opportunities
Traditional management roles and structures with clear demarcation of responsibilities and hierarchical
decision making processes
Clear business objectives and plans based on detailed market analysis and needs
More common in America, particularly in some of the newer institutions which are focused on distance
education
This definition by Professor Grainne Conole can be mapped onto the work of McNay (1995) to identify some
features of each type of organisation that are useful to consider when trying to implement change:
Factor Collegiate Bureaucratic Innovative Enterprise
Dominant value Freedom Equity Loyalty Competence
Role of central
authorities
Permissive Regulatory Directive Supportive
Handy’s
organisational
culture
Person Role Power Task
Dominant unit
Department/individual Faculty/committees Institution/senior
management team
Sub-unit/project
teams
Decision arenas
Informal groups
networks
Committees and
administrative
briefings
Working parties and
Senior Management
team
Project teams
Management style
Consensual Formal/’rational’ Political/tactical Devolved
leadership
Timeframe Long Cyclic Short/mid term Instant
Environmental fit Evolution Stability Crisis Turbulence
Nature of change
Organic innovation Reactive adaptation Proactive
transformation
Tactical flexibility
External referents
Invisible college Regulatory bodies Policy makers as
opinion leaders
Clients/sponsors
Internal referents
The discipline The rules The plans Market
strength/students
Basis for
evaluation
Peer assessment Audit of procedures Performance indicators Repeat business
Student status Apprentice academic Statistic Unit of resource Customer
Administrator
roles: servant
of…
The community The committee The chief executive The client,
internal and
external

Badly handled change can actually prove costly and devastating and actually move the institution
backwards
From Learning from a ‘triple whammy’ of change case study.
Five different broad approaches to effecting change were identified by Thurley and Wirdenius (1973) and
summarised by Lockitt (2004).
1. Directive strategies
This strategy highlights the manager’s right to manage change and the use of authority to impose change
with little or no involvement of other people. The advantage of the directive approach is that change can be
undertaken quickly. However, the disadvantage of this approach is that it does not take into consideration
the views, or feelings, of those involved in, or affected by, the imposed change. This approach may lead to
valuable information and ideas being missed and there is usually strong resentment from staff when
changes are imposed rather than discussed and agreed
2. Expert strategies
This approach sees the management of change as a problem solving process that needs to be resolved by
an ‘expert’. This approach is mainly applied to more technical problems, such as the introduction of a new
learner management system, and will normally be led by a specialist project team or senior manager. There
is likely to be little involvement with those affected by the change. The advantages to using this strategy is
that experts play a major role in the solution and the solution can be implemented quickly as a small
number of ‘experts’ are involved. Again, there are some issues in relation to this strategy as those affected
may have different views than those of the expert and may not appreciate the solution being imposed or the
outcomes of the changes made
3. Negotiating strategies
This approach highlights the willingness on the part of senior managers to negotiate and bargain in order to
effect change. Senior managers must also accept that adjustments and concessions may need to be made
in order to implement change. This approach acknowledges that those affected by change have the right to
have a say in what changes are made, how they are implemented and the expected outcomes. The
disadvantage to this approach is that it takes more time to effect change, the outcomes cannot be predicted
and the changes made may not fulfil the total expectations of the managers affecting the change. The
advantage is that individuals will feel involved in the change and be more supportive of the changes made
4. Educative strategies
This approach involves changing people’s values and beliefs, ‘winning hearts and minds’, in order for them
to fully support the changes being made and move toward the development of a shared set of
organisational values that individuals are willing, and able to support. A mixture of activities will be used;
persuasion; education; training and selection, led by consultants, specialists and in-house experts. Again,
the disadvantage of this approach is that it takes longer to implement. The advantage is that individuals
within the organisation will have positive commitment to the changes being made

5. Participative strategies
This strategy stresses the full involvement of all of those involved, and affected by, the anticipated changes.
Although driven by senior managers the process will be less management dominated and driven more by
groups or individuals within the organisation. The views of all will be taken into account before changes are
made. Outside consultants and experts can be used to facilitate the process but they will not make any
decisions as to the outcomes. The main disadvantages of this process are the length of time taken before
any changes are made, it can be more costly due to the number of meetings that take place, the payment of
consultants/experts over a longer time period and the outcomes cannot be predicted. However, the benefits
of this approach are that any changes made are more likely to be supported due to the involvement of all
those affected, the commitment of individuals and groups within the organisation will increase as those
individuals and groups feel ownership over the changes being implemented. The organisation and
individuals also have the opportunity to learn from this experience and will know more about the
organisation and how it functions, thus increasing their skills, knowledge and effectiveness to the
organisation
© 3T Productions Ltd. 2004
The five change strategies are not mutually exclusive and a range of strategies can be employed to effect change.
Part of the skill of effective change management is to recognise what strategy/ies to employ, when, where and how
to use them. Other issues such as health and safety, accessibility and union representation may also need to be
taken into consideration when deciding what strategy to adopt.
The change management strategies and their main advantages and disadvantages can be summarised as
follows:
Change Management Strategies – Copyright 3T Productions Ltd (2004)
You can probably already judge that some of these approaches are less likely to be successful than others in the
education environment. Indeed we would take a more negative view than Lockitt as to whether the ‘expert’
approach could be applied to an IT system implementation especially where the system was to be used by, or
impacted upon, the academic community. Key to this is the issue that ‘those affected may have different views

than those of the expert’. It would be overly cynical to state that we operate in an environment where ‘everybody is
an expert’ because there may be very valid reasons why different stakeholders hold very different views.
Don’t try and make “one size fit all”. Teaching staff are professionals and, once engaged, will come
up with a wide diversity of ideas and approaches.
Professor, Post ’92 University
Templates
Business case
Risk log
Having established what type of change you are intending to make and within what type of organisational culture
you are operating you are now in a position to consider your overall strategy.
On the other hand you may already be doubting the feasibility/desirability of your plans. At this point it may be wise
to review the Business Case for the change. Developing a business case is not necessarily a one-off activity. As
with any project, if your change initiative is a large scale and lengthy project, you may need to review the business
case at key points. Similarly you should be developing a Risk Log and Risk Management Plan that is regularly
reviewed and updated.
This may also be a good point at which to reflect on previous change initiatives within your organisation to identify
the approaches taken and consider the implications for your current project. One tool you can use to do this is
the Change Audit.
It used to be a rule of thumb in the post-compulsory education sector that, in order to change anything, you had
first to set up a project, give it an acronym (the sillier the better) and then go out and get stakeholders behind the
project by creating and maintaining a strong brand.
Many change projects are now finding that, although the rigour of managing the process as a formal project is
important, the question of brand identity is a double-edged sword and in some cases a strong brand can work
against wider and deeper embedding of change by singling the activity out as something different rather than part
of continuous evolution.
Projects are instead focusing on showing themselves to be responsive to their institutional context and priorities
and are aligning themselves to other initiatives where they are content to be seen in a supporting role. Some
projects indeed describe themselves as taking a guerilla approach to transformational change. By this they mean
they are providing specific solutions to institutional problems in order to win gradual support for the broader
strategic approaches they advocate rather than trying to ‘sell the big idea’ up front. This is indeed a sensible
approach in any large-scale change initiative especially those which relate in some way to the use of new
technologies. The clear message that the project is addressing real business needs and priorities is one that gains
credibility when the strategic plan is in the driving seat and the project fulfils a supporting role. Such an approach
is also helpful in organisations that risk suffering initiative fatigue with too many changes taking place at the same
time.
An excellent example of showing where a project sits in terms of strategic objectives and other initiatives is the
Cardiff University PALET project Motherboard.

PALET Motherboard
The project location and staffing are also of relevance in this context. Wherever possible project staff should be
perceived as neutral and work through existing channels without setting up any new power base.
A possible downside to this type of approach is that the project could be seen to lack clear direction and be at the
whim of many different stakeholders and hence at risk of scope creep. On the other hand the value of the flexibility
to be responsive and deliver some quick wins should not be underestimated. The University of Greenwich has
provided a helpful set of questions for projects in a similar situation wondering whether to accommodate
stakeholder requests to achieve a quick win:
Has the project identified clear overall goals, deliverables and activities?
Do you have a strong sponsor/champion with sufficient influence to deliver the quick win?
Is the balance between investment of time and impact of change weighted towards low investment and high
impact?
Are the main beneficiaries of the change central to the wider change your project seeks to deliver?
To what extent is the change proposed a recognised/shared business imperative?
Are you confident that the primary agents of change will deliver what they promise in the required
timescale?
Is the project in a position to delegate work to others and/or lever additional resources?
In some cases your project may be simply laying the (absolutely essential) foundations for further change. This
could take the form of technical underpinning that is relatively invisible to the end user but which cannot succeed
unless cultural and other changes take place. In such cases it can be particularly difficult to get the required
support.
The University of Bristol recognised this as an issue in trying to promote a move to service oriented approaches in

its core data integration project, “Getting senior level buy-in for significant investment in something that is not
clearly visible to the end-user – ie middleware – and which may involve high upfront costs and a longer time
before benefits are realised is a challenge that requires a lot of strong evidence and good communication with a
non-technical audience.” In this instance the University project team was able to make a good case and benefited
from a clear roadmap and effective governance model. For more detail see the project case study.
Checklists and templates
Kings College London has produced a checklist to act as a guide to undertaking an evaluation of your own
competence in several key areas and are developing an Action Plan for personal development.
Checklist for planners and leaders of change
Action plan template
Any large-scale change initiative will involve summoning support for the changes from across the organisation.
Staff may take on a number of different roles in relation to the change process. This section identifies these roles
and their application in an educational setting (depending on the nature and scale of the change not all roles may
be appropriate to any particular change).
It should be noted that the language of change management can itself be a barrier to effecting change within a
college or university setting where change titles such as ‘change agent’ are not widely used and if applied are
likely to meet with scepticism and some resistance. For example, calling Heads of Department ‘change agents’
may not meet with approval! The roles required to effect change will however exist in any successful change
process. Sometimes it can be beneficial to use the terminology to clearly signal the need to change.
Whatever the language used, there needs to be a clear understanding of the key roles; lack of clarity about roles
and expectations is one of the biggest barriers to success. The roles are very similar to the roles of Sponsor,
Manager and Champion involved in any project.
The change team, in other words the group of staff charged with implementing the change, must have the
confidence of both management and staff affected by the change. They will:
be drawn from all areas affected by the change
demonstrate commitment to the change (essential)
need to be given the time and recognition to undertake the role
support the change manager in undertaking his/her role and responsibilities
It is critical that you get the right mix of people in the team and that you create the conditions for them to succeed.
An overlap of roles is not uncommon – while acting as part of a change team, colleagues will most likely act as
change participants as well making changes to their own practices. This can cause personal conflict, and create a
risk to the change initiative. For example, a change agent, who would need to act as a role model, may initially
have conflicting views about the change situation, and thus may find it difficult to fulfil the change agent role.
Change roles are often given to individuals with minimal consideration of the consequences. General factors to be
considered when apportioning roles include:
Getting the balance of the team right (representation of all areas affected, authority, experience, skills etc)
Providing sufficient time to undertake the expected roles
Meeting any training needs for the new roles
In the education setting a change manager has to deal with a large number of individuals with potentially differing
viewpoints and also with an equally large number of groups and committees. Responsibility Charting can help you
clarify the decision making process in your organisation (see further resources).

“Change agents are expected to utilise strong facilitation and coaching skills, but conflict
management skills learned from ACAS have also been extremely useful.” University of Central
Lancashire
Case study
Perspectives on Leading in an Academic Environment
Before we begin to define individual roles it is worth saying a few things about leadership. Few would disagree that
good leadership is critical to successful change but equally few will be able to define exactly what that constitutes
in our environment.
There is a clear distinction between management and leadership. Management is a set of processes that keep a
complex system running smoothly. Leadership defines the future and aligns people with that future. We often find
that too much emphasis is placed on managing change and not enough on leading change.
Kotter (1995) has identified eight important steps in leading change. Although these derive from a business
perspective and may require some translation, they have some validity for change in education, especially
transformational change.
1. Establish a sense of urgency: examine market and competitive realities. Identify and discuss crises,
potential crises or major opportunities
2. Form a powerful guiding coalition: assemble a group with enough power to lead the change effort and
encourage the group to work together as a team
3. Create a vision: this helps direct the change effort. Develop strategies to support that vision
4. Communicate the vision: use every vehicle possible to communicate the new vision and strategies. The
coalition has to lead by example
5. Empower others to act: get rid of the obstacles to change. Change structures that undermine the vision,
encourage risk-taking and non-traditional ideas, activities and actions
6. Plan for and create short-term wins: plan for visible performance improvements, create those
improvements and recognise and reward employees involved
7. Consolidate improvements: use increased credibility to change systems, structures and policies that don’t
fit the vision, hire, promote and develop employees who can implement the vision. Reinvigorate the process
with new projects, themes and change agents
8. Institutionalise the new approach: articulate the connections between new behaviours and corporate
success. Develop the means to ensure leadership development and succession
In public sector organisations in the 21st century, and certainly in colleges and universities, leadership is not
something which is solely the prerogative of senior management. Aspects of the leadership of change may extend
to any part and any level of the organisation and our discussion of change roles should be read with this in mind.
Within ‘old’ universities in particular many Heads are appointed on a temporary basis. From a change perspective
this has both advantages (for example, a fresh perspective) and disadvantages (lack of continuity, and a sense
that everything is temporary and that staff can ride out any impetus).
Quotes from the case studies
It is important to try to encourage ownership of the change process by all senior managers as soon
as possible and not permit them to leave driving the initiative to one department only.
From Implementing a VLE at the Belfast Institute of F&HE: Changing the Culture Case Study

Disseminating good practice throughout the institution gets people excited about the proposed
changes.
From Effects of Business Development and Knowledge Transfer on institutional culture Case Study
Going around barriers taught us a lesson or two about building alliances, capturing enthusiasm,
empowering the right people and the effectiveness of rewarding change.
From Changing Teaching and Learning Styles Case Study
Success affects the culture of the institution too – the belief that we can replicate success boosts
morale, and confidence.
Making space for people to try new things is crucial when you are trying to effect change.From
Effects of Business Development and Knowledge Transfer on institutional culture Case Study
The group of staff charged with implementing the change – they must have the confidence of both the
management and the staff affected by the change. They:
Will be drawn from all areas affected by the change
Demonstrate commitment to the change (essential)
Will need to be given the time and recognition to undertake the role
Support the change manager in undertaking his/her role and responsibilities.
It is critical that you get the right mix of people in the team and that you create the conditions for them to succeed.
An overlap of roles is not uncommon – while acting as part of a change team, colleagues will most likely act as
change participants as well making changes to their own practices. This can cause personal conflict, and create a
risk to the change initiative. For example, a change agent, who would need to act as a role model, may initially
have conflicting views about the change situation, and thus may find it difficult to fulfil the change agent role.
Change roles are often given to individuals with minimal consideration of the consequences. General factors to be
considered when apportioning roles include:
Getting the balance of the team right (representation of all areas affected, authority, experience, skills etc)
Providing sufficient time to undertake the expected roles
Meeting any training needs for the new roles
Change manager
Someone with the expertise to lead the change, and can act as a role model for the new reality. May be an
experienced project or change manager within the organisation or, possibly, brought in from outside with specific
responsibility for managing the change.
The change manager has responsibility for the day-to-day implementation of the change:
Designs the change process, strategy and approach, and agrees these with the change team.
Takes responsibility and manages the change progress on a day-to-day basis.

Designs the communication strategy and contingency plans for the change.
Monitors progress.
Facilitates key events to build commitment for the change.
Liaises up and down the organisational structure.
Change sponsor
Someone who has the authority, seniority, power, enthusiasm, and time to lead/carry through/oversee the
changes. The change sponsor may not get involved with the day-to-day management of the change but should
support and monitor progress. Usually he or she is a senior member of the management team given responsibility
for effecting the change.
The change sponsor must ensure that the necessary resources are available throughout the change process and
accepts ultimate responsibility for the successful change implementation:
Agrees the change strategy and approach.
Is an active champion and role model for the ‘new reality’.
Monitors and communicates change progress to interested parties.
The type of person that became a change agent was willing to experiment, ready to change, and
had a good understanding of educational developments.
From Changing Teaching and Learning styles Case Study
The change agents are those people that really make the difference implementing the change at a local level. This
will depend on the nature of the change but the role often falls to middle managers because they have the
influence and authority to make the change take place.
Care needs to be taken, as middle management shouldn’t be treated as ‘the meat in the sandwich’ – effective
change agents need to be dedicated to the change process and should be provided with the support and given
time to adjust and accept the changes before they are to summon commitment from their departments.
Work needs to be undertaken to get commitment from this key group of staff when implementing change – they
are the key to implementing change processes effectively.
Change agents are responsible for facilitating the change through:
Gaining commitment for the changes.
Facilitating evaluation activities.
Monitoring and reporting progress of change.
Consulting and identifying bottlenecks/sources of resistance.
Disseminating lessons learned.
The following seven winning characteristics of the successful change agent is derived from a study of the
implementation of change in higher education.
Has a sense of purpose
Is fully aware of the need to change.
Has a vision of what can be achieved.

Is realistic about the scale and timescale for change.
Is flexible about the means to achieve the change.
Understands the change process.
Has the capability to Act
Has leadership and interpersonal skills, with political awareness.
Has a means to promote change (i.e. a role, a project, resources or influence).
Has knowledge of the institution, its history and its influential characters.
Develops the influential team.
Sells Success
Ensures that early successes are achieved.
Focussed on spreading successful practice.
Has a communications strategy for selling success.
Builds appropriate networks to facilitate communication.
Understands others’ priorities in order to offer them clear benefits.
Offers support and encouragement, not another problem.
Is strategically connected
Is well connected with sources of power and influence.
Builds a critical mass of senior people or a senior champion.
Ensures senior links will last and do not depend on one individual.
Understands the senior management agenda and sells benefits.
Makes the link between strategy and operations.
Encourages senior people to learn by experience.
Is critically reflective
Builds a non-threatening environment.
Encourages learning from failure as well as success.
Makes critical reflection a part of all plans and agendas.
Promotes reflection at every level i.e. personal, team department, and institutional.
Records important learning points so they don’t depend on memory.
Builds supporting structures
Ensures mechanisms are in place to continue the innovation and to spread it.
Embeds the innovation by making it an important part of a wider strategy.
Supports the innovation with appropriate resources for teaching and learning.
Ensures that future innovation will also be supported and embedded.
Develops processes to respond to the needs of institutional ‘stakeholders’.
Is opportunistic

Predicts and uses external and internal levers for change, including political forces.
Makes use of all available resources, including students, employers and alumni.
Notices and secures external funding which will support (not dictate) the change.
Encourages innovation, for example with protected money for innovative projects.
Change champion
These are the early adopters, colleagues who want the change implementation to succeed, and believe that the
change will be beneficial to the Institution. The change champions will be members of staff affected by the change.
They do not have to have management responsibilities.
The change champion will make an excellent change agent, but may not always want the excess work associated
with the change. The change manager must decide how to make use and reward the enthusiasm and support of
the change champions.
The change champions are the natural marketeers for the organisational change and act as catalysts for others.
They will speak positively about the change, show that it can be done and support colleagues at an informal level.
They give recognition when new behaviours are demonstrated.
Templates
Stakeholder analysis
Stakeholder interest and influence
A key element of sustaining and embedding the outputs and outcomes of any project is to effectively engage
stakeholders throughout your project’s lifecycle. There are three key aspects to stakeholder engagement.
1. Identify – who has a stake in your project and who will be affected by it (change participants)
2. Assess – your stakeholders’ attitudes towards the project, the power they have over it and their
requirements of you
a. Attitude: supportive or concerned/resistant
b. Power: interest and influence
c. Requirements: specific needs and/or support
3. Engage – designing strategies to keep your stakeholders on board
In education you ignore this at your peril. Effective stakeholder engagement is critical to the success of any
change project. Actually engaging stakeholders is different to merely having a communications plan. A useful
concept in thinking about this is the notion of a ‘ladder of engagement’ (Arnstein, 1969) – the rungs of the ladder
move from non-participation and tokenistic participation through to partnership and, ultimately, full citizen power. In
an educational setting it is perhaps more appropriate to think of levels of engagement in terms of stakeholders’ (as
opposed to citizens’) potential influence over the project – the higher up the ladder the more potential a
stakeholder has to influence that project.
Ladder of engagement – Arnstein (1969)
#1 Identifying stakeholders
The first step in identifying your project’s stakeholders is to simply draw up a list. Approaches vary in terms of
focusing on specific individuals or stakeholder groups; start with whichever feels more comfortable to you. It may
be helpful however to think through:

Which of your organisational strategies the proposed
change affects and who has managerial responsibility
and oversight/authority
The organisational processes/systems being affected
and who has control over them
Who is involved in the process being affected and
whose habitual behaviour will have to change
Who relies on, or makes use of the outputs of, the
process/system but is not engaged in inputting to it
Those indirectly affected by the system, if at all
Once you have a comprehensive list it can be extremely
useful to get your project sponsor/senior manager to sign it
off. This helps to ensure that you do not get a stakeholder
emerging unexpectedly in the middle of your project, which
may derail it. Whatever you do, don’t forget students! (See
‘students as change agents’ below.)
#2 Stakeholder assessment
A better understanding of who your stakeholders are really
helps when it comes to defining your engagement strategies.
It also helps you to prioritise stakeholder groups/individuals
which can save you a lot of time once your project or change
initiative really gets going.
Perhaps the easiest place to start, especially if you’re familiar with the context in which you’re working, is an
assessment of the influence and interest people have over/in your project. This can be achieved using a simple
matrix, shown below.
Stakeholder interest and influence diagram – view in Google Docs

If a stakeholder is very interested in your project and has a lot of influence over it then they should be considered
a key player and it will be better to engage them face to face. If a stakeholder has no interest in or influence over
your project then a written notification might suffice.
If you haven’t already, then at this point it’s probably worth going out and talking to your stakeholders; the GOAT
(go out and talk) approach was used by Liverpool John Moores University in the Jisc Transformations project
‘Doing Digital’. Not only will this help you to update your interest/influence matrix, you’ll start to get a feel for their
attitude towards the project, and any requirements they might have.
Assessing stakeholders’ attitudes
Manchester Metropolitan University developed a Stakeholder Analysis Template back in 2009 (p. 5) which
provides a really useful way of recording and representing the attitudes of key stakeholders. Not only does it
summarise their attitude, eg blocker or advocate, it highlights their current feelings towards the project and
describes what the ideal situation would be along a continuum: against it happening; let it happen; help it happen;
and make it happen.
Example stakeholder analysis template – Manchester Metropolitan University
Engaging with stakeholders
Assessing identified stakeholders helps you to:
Develop an understanding of the barriers to change
Identify the levers to change i.e. benefits
Understand how best to communicate key messages
All of this information will help you to determine how best to engage with different stakeholders from across your
project. The table below summarises a number of approaches used across Jisc programmes and projects, the
effort required and level of influence afforded to a stakeholder through that approach. It’s by no means
comprehensive but it does provide a useful way of thinking about the types of approach you adopt.
Approach Effort
Influence
afforded
Blogging – perhaps best described as a web-based diary, generally used to provide a
more open account of your activities.
Medium Low
Codesign – involves stakeholders from the outset of a project, from the initial generation
of ideas through to their development and delivery.
High High
Email bulletin – an easy way to send updates to a large group of people, typically one-
way.
Low Low

Email list – open/private space where online discussions can take place. Low Medium
Focus groups – an organised event that allows you to gain a better understanding of
individuals feelings/opinions about something.
High Medium
Networks (establish champions) – a group of connected people through which
messages can be passed. Champions are typically influential within that network and can
be used to amplify key messages or ideas.
Medium Low
Participatory approaches – an organised event which brings a group of people together
to seek their opinions, extract their knowledge and to solve problems in a collaborative
and creative environment.
High High
Posters – a passive way of sharing information about a specific topic. Typically presented
on notice boards within a public space.
Medium Low
Presentation – a short talk, often supported by visual aids, to explain a new idea/area of
work or convey key messages.
Medium Low
Service design – an approach where the end-users are the main focus and the users’
experience is viewed holistically
High High
Social media – varies, but typically involves a range of interactions between individuals
within an online community.
Low Low
Surgery – a dedicated time slot where individuals can find out more about a particular
area of work on a one-to-one basis.
Medium Low
World Cafe – a simple but powerful technique for tapping into collective intelligence,
based around conversation in a convivial setting where ‘every voice counts’.
High Medium
Approach Effort
Influence
afforded
We’ve noticed that the more influence you afford stakeholders over the project, the more likely it is to succeed.
Especially where a project lacks senior management support – it results in a ‘groundswell’ so to speak. You need
to strike a balance however, as the effort required for that level of engagement is very high. Intersperse the more
participatory approaches with regular updates, providing your project with a communicative rhythm.
Students as change agents
Received wisdom has it that it is notoriously difficult to involve students in projects because of their commitments
and relatively short-term engagement with the institution. Recent experience from Jisc projects however suggests
otherwise. There is now a considerable body of evidence to show that effective engagement with learners in terms
of a genuine partnership can bring enormous benefits to projects.
Examples include:
Birmingham City University’s Student Academic Partnership scheme
University of Exeter’s work on Students as Change Agents
Bath Spa/Winchester Universities’ work with Student Fellows to improve assessment and feedback practice
on the FASTECH project
… the novice-expert dynamic has been overturned. Two years into the project, we have observed
and reflected on the fact that it is not us who are privileging the Student Fellows by awarding them
with these important roles, but rather we who are privileged because of the insights we have gained
from being allowed into their worlds. Student Fellows have given us an honest insight into what
goes on behind the scenes when technology is brought into the mix and how re-shaping feedback

influences their confidence, self-belief, well-being, subject knowledge and collaborative skills.Bath
Spa University and University of Winchester
Our top five tips
1. Be resilient, don’t give up! Change doesn’t occur overnight and this holds true of your stakeholders’
attitudes
2. Build upon previous success stories. Concentrate on the low-hanging fruit – successfully delivering small
change helps to build confidence in your ability to deliver transformational change
3. Have your elevator pitch with you and ready at all times, you never know who you might meet on your way
to the 5th floor
4. Appeal to different learning styles eg visual, audio and kinaesthetic. If you fail to engage an individual or
group, try again, use a different mode of delivery
5. Use your personal networks to reach key individuals that you might not easily have access to
It is highly likely that you will have all of the skills and expertise needed to establish what needs changing, propose
a way forward and effect the change within your own organisation. Having said that, it is equally likely that during
a major change project you could benefit from some kind of external support. We are not talking here about
particular technical or specialist expertise that you may need for specific aspects of a project that involves process
improvement and/or the implementation of new technologies but more about general support during the change
process. There are many reasons for this, for example:
externals have a degree of objectivity that can often help those within the organisation to achieve clarity
more quickly
talking the issues through with externals often gives project teams greater confidence in their own insights
many people, not least senior managers, feel reassured that there is some kind of external validation of the
way forward
often you can learn from the mistakes that others have already made
We are thus not advocating that you bring somebody in to tell you how to do it right (see also the section on
appreciative inquiry) but rather that you look at the most effective way of facilitating the process of change within
your organisation. Very often this is best achieved by finding a way to leverage the expertise of others within the
sector who share a cultural frame of reference and are thus well able to place your project into an appropriate
context. Such approaches often work better than bringing in experts from other industry segments who may find
themselves trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
In the following sections we look at some approaches that have worked well in change projects in the education
sector. They include:
the use of a critical friend to work with the project team
a whole team (or perhaps even wider) approach to sharing practice across organisations via the CAMEL
model and
a more individualised staff development approach through participation in an action learning set
a low-cost approach through the use of existing Jisc resources
The approaches are not mutually exclusive and can be combined in various ways to good effect. The right choice
for you will depend partly on your organisational culture and partly on available resources to fund external support
(bearing in mind that this can often be a very cost-effective way to avoid expensive mistakes).
The critical friend is a powerful idea, perhaps because it contains an inherent tension. Friends bring

a high degree of unconditional positive regard. Critics are, at first sight at least, conditional,
negative and intolerant of failure. Perhaps the critical friend comes closest to what might be
regarded as ‘true friendship’ – a successful marrying of unconditional support and unconditional
critique.
John MacBeath, Professor of Education Leadership, Cambridge University
The concept of a critical friend has gained a lot of ground in the sector in recent years without there being a clearly
acknowledged origin or definitive reference source. There are references to the critical friend being both a person
and a process and to the use of the term ‘critical’ meaning key or important (as in challenging a tendency for
individuals or organisations to avoid difficult issues) as well as referring to critiquing as a review technique. The
practice is widely used across the UK public sector but, given its obvious alignment with scholarly review
processes, it is perhaps unsurprising that it has found favour with many change projects in the education sector.
There are many parallels with the use of mentoring and of coaching as a non-directive approach to support
learning by helping learners explore issues and gain a more objective view that can help them find the best
solutions for themselves. Coaching puts conversation at the heart of a supportive and developmental process and
the coach does not offer advice or make suggestions but facilitates the exploration of issues and possible options
in a way that supports autonomous learning.
The practice of appointing a critical friend to work with individual, and groups of, projects has been applied in
many Jisc innovation programmes with considerable success. The role of the critical friend in these projects has
often gone beyond the facilitation role of a coach to being an independent expert, an advocate for the work of the
project, a means of leveraging external networks and a source of suggestions and examples. It goes without
saying however that the relationship is unique in each instance and the important thing is for each project and the
critical friend to define roles and responsibilities in a way that works for them.
Jisc has produced an infoKit based on the experiences of critical friends who have worked with its projects. It looks
at issues such as choosing the right critical friend, establishing the ground rules for effective working and dealing
with difficult issues.
It’s about practice warts and all – and the warts are more interesting than the practice sometimes
Quote from CAMEL participant
CAMEL was originally short for Collaborative Approaches to the Management of E-Learning. CAMEL was a
HEFCE-funded project led by Jisc infoNet in partnership with the Association for Learning Technology (ALT) and
the Higher Education Academy. The original project in 2006 led to widespread adoption of the model by the
participating organisations and the universities and colleges involved.
The model is one of a Community of Practice learning together through a series of structured study visits to each
of the partner organisations. It has its origins in a self-help group formed many years ago by a number of small
farmers in Uruguay.
Key features of that group that were incorporated into the CAMEL model are that the study visits:
were planned collaboratively
were documented before and after
were focused on things that matter
were expertly facilitated
were formally evaluated
had a strong emphasis on tacit knowledge and making this explicit

…you could be forgiven for thinking that it sounds a little tree-hugging/bean-baggy. That’s certainly
what I thought when I read-up on the process which deliberately veers away from problem solving
and instead concentrates on giving individuals space to reflect on their work. But it’s worked really
well…”
Dave White, University of Oxford
Action Learning as an approach is credited to Reg Revans who developed the technique based on his
experiences as a physicist at Cambridge University where eight (future) Nobel prize winners met regularly to
discuss their experiments. They didn’t meet to convince each other how clever they were but “to see if we can
understand our own difficulties.“ Revans used the technique when working for the National Coal Board in the
1940s and it has been popular in the UK public sector since that time.
The essence of the method is people being prepared to understand the limitations of their own knowledge, to
develop new ideas through insights received from questioning by others and to test those ideas in action and
reflect upon the results.
Revans summed up the approach in a formula:
L = P + Q
Where L = learning; P = programming (knowledge already established) and Q = questioning to create insight into
what people see, hear or feel.
It is recognised ignorance not programmed knowledge which is the key to action learning.
Reg Revans, Revans, R. (1983), ‘Action Learning: Its Origins and Nature,’ in Pedler, M. (ed.) Action
Learning in Practice. Gower, Aldershot, pp 5-13.
Marquardt (2009) adapted the formula to read:
L = P + Q + R
Where R = reflection.
The technique is one that focuses very much on the individual and hence it is used in management development
programmes more frequently than within project teams. The approach has however been used by Jisc to support
project managers (see section on Applying action learning).
Action learning usually takes place in groups known as action learning sets (ALS). The aim of the set is not to
resolve issues together but rather to help each individual member accelerate their own rate of learning with the
support and challenge of the other group members. The optimum size for an action learning set is generally
thought to be around 4-7 members. If there are too many then not all can participate fully and if there are too few
there may not be sufficient diversity of experience and opinion within the group.
Being part of an ALS offers a range of opportunities, including:
time and space for your own reflections
insights from others/with others
different perspectives and ideas with/from others
knowledge and experiences of others
being questioned by others
support from others
challenge by others

sharing confusions with others
sharing successes with others – and learning from them
hearing yourself be helpful – and gaining in confidence
‘hearing yourself think – and respond’
building your questioning and listening skills
moving forward to address a problem or manage task – having committed yourself to action
The ALS will have structured meetings. These can be either face to face or virtual. Experience suggests the
approach requires a degree of trust which may be best fostered by meeting face to face initially although entirely
online sets have been successful.
After three ALS sessions I’m pleased to report that the format does translate into the ‘virtual’ very
nicely. It’s a classic case of people needing to get-to-know one another and build a modicum of
trust before the conversation flows in an ‘honest’ manner.
… if you are taking part in an online Action Learning Set and you are trying to build trust online
hold-out for at least three sessions, it’s well worth the wait.
The ALS agrees how its meetings will be organised but each member usually has a turn to focus on their project or
issues at every meeting. The speaker will usually take about a third of the allocated time to present to the rest of
the group who will listen actively and then formulate questions to help that member clarify the issues in hand and
identify actions to take.
The action is of course as important as the discussion at the meeting and each member is accountable for taking
action. In subsequent meetings they will then reflect on the outcomes of that action.
When starting up an ALS members will establish a series of ground rules that are likely to include confidentiality
and behaviour during meetings.
An ALS will often appoint a facilitator to help each participant gain the maximum from the learning opportunities
presented. Some advocates of the model believe that sets can self-organise without the need for this role but
experience from change projects in the education sector indicates that those new to the approach welcome this
type of support. The interventions of the ALS facilitator are not those of a tutor, expert or Chair. Their focus is
closer to those of a mentor or coach whose aim is to empower participants. To this end, the tasks of the facilitator
include:
introducing, explaining and modelling the core process and skills of action learning
ensuring that the process of action learning is maintained with all group members respecting the agreed
process and limits/ground rules
ensuring that time is fairly distributed across the set members
nurturing effective learning that focuses on listening, questioning and developing deeper understanding
encouraging the group beyond superficial analysis
developing group trust and confidentiality and creates safety for individual members to explore sensitive
issues
ensuring that all members are actively involved without allowing one or two members to dominate the set
promoting reflection on the individual and group learning process encouraging participants to challenge and
experiment with the process with awareness

helping participants observe all levels of their experience – what they felt, thought, sensed – that emerge
within the process
enabling the group to draw out general points of learning and evaluate learning outcomes
Experiences of Jisc ALS (Action Learning Sets) participants
… as we took it in turns to listen to each other talk about project issues, ask helpful questions and
make practical suggestions. I noticed how often people said ’thanks, that’s a really great idea!’
People seemed to find the human contact reassuring.
Project Manager, King’s College London
I have to admit I was sceptical about how useful these would be when we were first asked to
participate in them but they’re actually incredibly helpful – for both reassurance and shared
learning.
Project Manager, Coventry University
… ‘problem-solving’ would be an erroneous approach, especially as everyone involved comes from
institutions of differing character so the specifics vary. The value in the ALS is not in directly finding
solutions but in having a space in which it becomes clear that everyone is negotiating similar
overarching challenges and that it’s not all about being clever with technology.
Not all views of the experience are however quite so positive and this quote comes from the critical friend to a
group of projects for whom the technique did not work and therefore had to be modified:
The participants found it a frustrating experience, they wanted others to share their experiences
and advice and felt quite capable of hearing opinions from others without feeling judged or their
experiences diminished. My impression was that the concerns about a safe neutral space as
mentioned in the ALS document were overly cosseting their feelings and they felt somewhat
patronised by that.
Action learning questions
The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education has developed an Action Learning Toolkit that gives a useful
guide to the types of questioning that may be useful in action learning sets. We’d highly recommend taking a look
at their guidance: LFHE Action Learning Toolkit.
Overall, we discovered a rich quantity of information, guidance and advice from previous Jisc
projects and Jisc publications. This provided a foundation from which to formulate an approach to
the core issues of the project as well as describing what issues might arise in carrying out a project
of this nature.
University of Worcester’s Building Capacity project final report
Universities and colleges, as learning organisations, remain guilty of ‘reinventing the wheel’ quite often when it
comes to change projects. Effective use of Jisc resources and the learning available from past projects can often
take some of the legwork out of investigating suitable options. They are unlikely to provide you with an out-of-the-
box solution but they can give you ideas and an indication of likely feasibility as well as highlighting some of the
issues that might crop up in your particular context. They can also provide you with a rich source of contacts who
might fill specific gaps in your expertise or be able to take on roles such as that of a critical friend to your project.

The University of Bradford took a somewhat unusual approach to meeting its strategic objectives relating to a
“web enabled campus supported by mobile technology” by undertaking a literature review of recent Jisc projects
in the field, shortlisting those that appeared to have resulted in a significant improvement related to one or more of
Bradford University’s strategic objectives and then asking senior managers and other stakeholders to vote on
which solution appeared to offer the most potential to meet Bradford’s needs. They then undertook a feasibility
study on the preferred solution prior to implementation.
By taking the original concept of such a project and implementing it in a way suitable for the
Bradford environment it was deemed more likely to result in the achievement of the desired goals
due to it being a proven solution.
University of Bradford’s Building Capacity project final report
An additional benefit from involvement in Jisc innovation programmes or engagement with Jisc resources is
access to the associated communities of practice. The University of Plymouth found considerable benefit in this
when it conducted a survey relating to students and their use of technology. Through engagement with the Jisc
community they were able to arrange for the survey to be conducted across five different universities at the same
time with each institution using a common set of questions supplemented by institution specific questions resulting
in all of the participating institutions having access to a much broader range of relevant data.
The University of Cumbria had a similar experience when Jisc projects it identified as potentially able to offer
interesting lessons for the University in developing its use of social media to support student learning and retention
were able to provide critical friends for Cumbria’s own project:
Finally, we must attribute much of our learning as an organisation to excellent contributions from
the four project consultants who have very effectively adopted the role of critical friend. Each has
brought a unique and enriching perspective which has reinforced the value of both their
experiences in guiding us, and of the Jisc projects that they have been involved with in their own
institutions that triggered our collaboration.
Jisc Watch
The University of Bradford noted that “One of the things that have become apparent during the
course of the project is the value of engagement with Jisc at an individual level.“ and, as a result,
the University has implemented ‘Jisc Watch’ encouraging its staff to follow Jisc staff on Twitter,
adding Jisc to its RSS feed and tracking new Jisc documents. It also recommended to its IT
Services Project Board that future objectives and projects are matched against previous Jisc work,
as part of the initial Project Initiation Document to help increase project success by implementing
solutions that have already been tested by other FE and HE institutions.
Benefits of learning from Jisc projects
The benefits from the project have been numerous and include cost savings from harvesting
existing ideas/processes that would have incurred considerable design and realisation time.
Edge Hill University, Building Capacity project final report
… this was not about a simple ‘cut’ and ‘paste’ from the Jisc projects but to use the outputs and
outcomes as a catalyst for developing our own ideas fitting for our varied disciplinary contexts.”
University of Leeds, Building Capacity project final report

The process predominately stimulated ideas, as opposed to offering ready made solutions and
artefacts.
Edge Hill University’s Building Capacity project final report
The initial stages of the project involved identifying and reviewing relevant Jisc resources on e-
Portfolio systems and CPD. Through this review, important and useful guidance about how to
pursue the project was discovered which addressed issues of both change management and
technical support.
University of Worcester, Building Capacity project final report
Existing Jisc material has meant that there was no need to re-invent the wheel, simply make it work
for UCLan!” University of Central Lancashire, Transformations project case study
The whole department were given the same awareness sessions but only one became engaged…
You have to motivate a lot of people in order to engage one.ILT Co-ordinator, FE College
Change is an incremental process, neither individuals nor organisations adopt a change overnight. Some change
process theories describe the stages of a successful change process as consisting of three phases:
Unfreezing: Creating the motivation to change by disconfirmation of the present state, creation of survival
anxiety, creating of psychological safety to overcome learning anxiety
Moving: Learning new concepts, new meanings, and new standards by imitation of and identification with
role models, scanning for solutions and trial-and-error learning
Refreezing: Internalising new concepts, meanings, and standards by incorporating into self-concept and
identity and into ongoing relationships and groups
We would argue that change in real life is rather more organic than this. Rather than ‘refreezing’ at the end of a
project a successful implementation will pave the way for a more change robust culture in which continuous
improvement becomes normal. The model may nonetheless have some validity in the case of technological
change where decisions taken as part of one project constrain choices in the future.
Innovation research is a field of research which suggests that the propensity of individuals to change and
implement new ideas, products or processes differs. Rogers’ (2003) theory on the diffusion of innovations refers to
change processes in relation to the individual and his or her decision process regarding the adoption or rejection
of an innovation/change. He differentiates five stages in the decision process:
1. knowledge occurs when an individual is exposed to an innovation’s existence and gains an understanding
of how it functions.
2. persuasion occurs when an individual forms a favourable or an unfavourable attitude towards the
innovation.
3. decision takes place when an individual engages in activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the
innovation.
4. implementation occurs when an individual puts a new idea into use.
5. confirmation takes place when an individual seeks reinforcement of an innovation-decision already made,
but he or she may reverse this previous decision if exposed to conflicting messages about the innovation.
Conner and Patterson (1982) propose a total of 8 stages (see figure below) for an organisation or a person to go
through when becoming committed to a change goal. The authors claim that each stage indicates a critical
juncture, in which commitment can be threatened. This is shown in the illustration below. If a stage is completed
successfully, advancement to the next stage is possible. If not, the downward arrows indicate the result.

Eight stages – Conner and Patterson (1982)
Innovation research (Rogers, 2003) categorises people in terms of their propensity to change, ranging from:
Innovators (venturesome)
They are very eager to try new ideas. This interest leads them out of local circle of peer networks and into
more cross-functional relationships. Communication patterns and friendships among a clique of innovators
are common, even though their distance (functional, geographical, etc.) between the innovators may be
considerable. In order to be an innovator, there are several prerequisites. These are control of substantial
financial resources, the ability to understand and the ability to apply complex technical knowledge. The
innovator must also be able to cope with a higher than average degree of uncertainty.
Early adopters (respectable)
They are a more integrated part of the local social system than are innovators. They have the greatest
degree of opinion leadership in most social systems. Potential adopters look to early adopters for advice
and information about the innovation. The early adopter is considered as individual to check with before
using a new idea. They are respected by their peers and are the embodiment of successful and discrete
use of new ideas.
Early majority (deliberate)
They adopt new ideas just before the average member of a social system. The early majority interacts
frequently with peers, but seldom holds leadership positions. The early majority’s unique position between
the very early and the relatively late to adopt makes them an important link in the diffusion process. They
provide interconnectedness in the system’s networks. They may deliberate for some time before completely
adopting a new idea. Their innovation-decision period is relatively longer then that of the innovators and the
early adopter.
Late majority (sceptical)
They adopt new ideas just after the average member of a social system. They don’t adopt until most others
in their social system have done so. They can be persuaded of the utility of new ideas, but the pressure of

peers is necessary to motivate adoption.
Laggards (traditional)
They are the last group to adopt an innovation. They possess almost no opinion leadership. Decisions are
often made in terms of what has been done in previous generations and these individuals interact primarily
with others who also have relatively traditional values.
These types bear a lot of similarity to those identified by the University of Huddersfield in a large scale study of the
adoption of e-marking.
Innovation research has also identified properties of innovations (in this case organisational changes) that are
likely to meet with success. These are:
relative advantage, the degree to which it is perceived to be better than the situation currently existing
compatibility, the perceived ‘fit’ of the innovation with existing structures, procedures and values
complexity, the degree of difficulty involved in learning about and implementing the innovation
trialability, the extent to which an innovation can be tried by potential adopters without major investment of
time or resources
observability, the degree to which outcomes resulting from the adoption of an innovation are visible
In our environment we do of course have a significant pressure group who may drive change:
There is a strong motivational element that can be tapped that comes from the students
themselves. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that students who see other groups using the
technology when they are taught without it produce a groundswell of concern and envy. Staff
members are bluntly asked “Why are we not getting to use the computers when other groups do?”
Educational Technologist, FE College
The students were the biggest driver for change – once exposed to innovative practices, they
expected that they would get similar ‘treatment’ from every lecturer. This spurred colleagues into
action more than anything else. People who were thought of as barriers for the change in the
beginning were eager to be trained and embrace ‘the new’, as the change wasn’t anymore
perceived as the whim of a VC or a DVC, but was what students really needed and wanted. It all
made sense. We saw the opinion changing influence that students as stakeholders of the teaching
profession have.
The Tipping Point
Rogers (2003) states that the adoption of an innovation/change will exhibit a normal distribution on a time graph
but a concept of which is being increasingly used is that of the ‘Tipping Point’ (Gladwell 2000). The Tipping Point is
similar to the idea of the ‘critical mass’ which originated in physics and is defined as the amount of radioactive
material necessary to produce a nuclear reaction. The ‘critical mass’ in innovation research indicates the point at
which enough individuals in a system have adopted an innovation so that the innovation’s further rate of adoption
becomes self-sustaining (Anghern 2005). This is especially relevant for interactive communications technology
where a critical mass of individuals must adopt the technology before the average individual can benefit from the
system.
A number of younger staff were actually quite keen to change, so we directly dealt with these
individuals by appointing a number of people, whom we called change agents, in every
department, across the university.From Changing Teaching and Learning styles Case Study

Any change will have its proponents and its opponents. Preparation for change includes not only generating
enthusiasm for the change process and working with the early adopters and converts, but being prepared to
challenge and win-over the sceptics.
Undertaking a Force Field analysis is one way of analysing the driving and restraining forces for change.
Change can be seen by some people as devaluing their previous experience which may explain why younger
people, who have invested less time and effort in learning the old ways find it easier to adapt to the new.
Thinking about the personal perspectives on change and preparing responses to the issues that might arise will
help you to address concerns. In the initial stages of the development of proposals it can be useful to test your
ideas with staff who are prepared to be more sceptical and act as a devil’s advocate. This can help prepare for
battles to come. To do so staff will need a safe forum in which to voice their concerns and work on the change.
Change is generally met with enthusiasm when:
we propose the change
we are involved in the design of the change
we feel that our opinion/views are heard, and contribute to the new reality
we benefit from the change
the organisation benefits from the change
the students benefit from the change
the wider community benefits from the change
we dislike the present status quo
we are confident about our competence in the new context
we trust/respect/like the person/group, proposing the change
we can see the big picture and how the change contributes to it
we are given support and time to adjust to the changes
we are not expected to change too many things at the same time
change is spaced
we understand the reasons for the change
we believe the change is important
we believe the change is necessary
Change in education is met with confrontation when:
we are not involved in the change design
we feel that our opinion/views are not considered
we do not see benefits for ourselves, arising from the change
we do not feel the University would benefit from the change
we do not feel the students would benefit from the change
we do not feel the wider community would benefit from the change
we like the present status quo
We lack confidence about our competence in the new context
we do not trust/do not respect/do not like the person/group, proposing the change
we can not see the big picture and how the change would contribute to it

we are not given support and time to adjust to the changes
we are expected to change too many things at the same time
change is not carried through properly
we do not understand the reasons for the change
there is no clarity about change aims and objectives
we believe other things need changing more urgently
we believe the time is not right for this particular change
the degree of change is too great to be readily assimilated
Most major change processes elicit some or all of the following reactions:
Initial disbelief – it won’t happen!
Anger – it won’t happen if I can help it!
Acceptance – if it’s going to happen then I might as well do it!
Accommodating new reality in – that works quite well and I wouldn’t want to change it.
Dealing with resistance often requires challenging and changing colleagues’ perceptions and beliefs – such
changes are not easy to effect and the effort put in working through the barriers must be commensurate to the
outcomes. However, large-scale change, especially cultural change, is likely to be more difficult to manage if the
barriers are not addressed.
When estimated resistance is going to take a long time to deal with there are a number of strategies that can be
adopted:
Work with the early adopters and then move onto the main group of staff. Recognise that there will always
be some staff who find difficulty in making the change and marginalise them by ensuring the majority are on
board.
Confront the sceptics head on.
Return to the drawing board, are there other ways in which the outcomes can be achieved?
We have looked generally at resistance to change and, whilst it often appears that there are particular issues
when the change involves implementation of new technology, in fact the underlying issues are very similar. In the
section on adoption of change we outline a useful model for the stages people go through in deciding whether or
not to adopt a particular innovation and those stages remain valid whether or not the ‘innovation’ is technology
related. There are two key points to this section:
recognise a change project for what it is and don’t be fooled by the red herring of technology. If the project
needs somebody with change management experience, make sure you bring in those skills and don’t be
tempted to saddle a technical specialist with these responsibilities
familiarise yourself with the discourse of resistance around the implementation of new technologies. You
will no doubt hear it all for yourselves but forewarned is forearmed so read on…
It is tempting to ask “Who are likely to be the resisters?” but, whilst relatively small scale research for particular
projects can often identify user related characteristics such as age, gender etc as factors affecting people’s
confidence in using technology, it is overly simplistic to look for single factors such as this that characterise
opponents of a ‘new system’. A range of other backgrounds, values and beliefs will inevitably come into play.
Similarly, whilst the characteristics of the technology itself are important (poorly designed systems and those with
obvious bugs will induce resentment) more interesting are situations where a particular technology is loved by
some and hated by others. Markus (1983) identifies common circumstances in which user and system
characteristics interrelate to impact on resistance to the introduction of MIS systems:

Systems are resisted on the basis that they centralise control over data within organisations that otherwise
exemplify decentralised structures
Systems alter the power balance within organisations such that it is resisted by those who lose power
Resistance arises from the interaction between the technical design of a system and the environmental or
social circumstances in which it is used
Tales of resistance
The University of Strathclyde noticed the above factors at play when it introduced a new system for curriculum
management replacing a varied set of devolved, paper-based processes. The general impression of academic
staff was that the system facilitated greater transparency of process which was actually empowering to academics
and supported the sharing of knowledge and good practice. A significant minority however perceived that the
system benefited administrators at the expense of academic freedom. An evaluator’s report noted:
This view appears to be corroborated by anecdotal observations of academic quality processes at a
number of faculties whereby it was not uncommon for incomplete or substandard curriculum
designs to be submitted for faculty consideration. Designs often followed no particular template,
omitted key information (eg number of student contact hours, resource implications, constructive
alignment, etc), and were left for academic quality teams to ‘sanitise’. Due process was also
occasionally subverted at the behest of senior academics. The design process under the previous
state therefore afforded some academics significant freedom in the curriculum design process, and
this freedom no longer exists in the new state.
PiP: Principles in Patterns – Evaluation
The conclusion from a number of projects in the sector (particularly in universites eg Strathclyde and
Huddersfield) is that taking a very directive approach to the adoption of technology can be counter-productive and
that it is better to ease transition by accepting a variety of approaches for a certain period of time. The University
of Strathclyde notes:
Emphasis here is on coaxing the ‘late majority’. Forcing such users to abandon familiar
technologies can be counterproductive and the use of bridging options are often advocated
whereby some choice in system adoption is provided, at least temporarily.
Although they go on to say:
Such an approach carries several inherent risks, not least the potential for academics to subvert the
process.
This section is taken from the work of the Open University’s OULDI project which researched staff attitudes to
adopting new tools to support curriculum design. They identified and analysed five common objections:
1 “I haven’t enough time.”
There may be a number of reasons that staff perceive themselves to have ‘not enough’ time. Firstly, they perceive
themselves to be less skilled or, compared to someone else, relatively inexperienced or inefficient in using the tool
or approach. The use of ‘I’ may be important here; ie “I haven’t the skills or knowledge to do this in the time
available” rather than ”there isn’t time for someone with sufficient skills or knowledge to do this.” Furthermore, the
estimate of the time an individual requires may include the time needed to first learn the new skills or knowledge.

This extends the reason not to engage but continues to pin the reason for resistance against an external factor
(limited time) rather than to an individual specific factor (less skilled).
Even depersonalising the claim to “there isn’t enough time” is a statement of fact rather than an overwhelming
reason to disengage. There are still possible options available eg
1. stop doing something else less important and do the proposed change instead
2. do other stuff more efficiently so as to find time
3. expend more time by adding the change to existing practice
Invariably, the discourse of resistance favours the latter. This is perhaps because the first option requires an
appraisal of the current process and a determination of the relative value of the new tool or approach in question –
compared to other tasks what priority should the change be given?
2 “It doesn’t help me.”
Objections presented in terms of low value to the individual concerned are quite hard to argue against because
they relate so much to individual personal experience. The Open University notes however that there is a
discernible strand in this particular discourse of resistance that presents arguments about value that appear ill
thought through, not properly articulated, or focus on relatively superficial issues and cites examples of long
arguments about semantics used within design tools. They also note that, in contrast, more positive discourses
associated with value tend to refer more to experiences gained through extended and applied use of the tool or
approach, the benefits to others (such as colleagues or the institution) and the benefit to students.
3 “Prove to me this works.”or “Where is the evidence?”
On the face of it these are fair and reasonable requests. However, the link between demonstrable evidence of
impact and convincing someone to use a tool or approach is not straightforward. Some academics are happy to
pilot a new teaching idea with almost no evidence beyond their own ‘hunch’ whereas others continue to argue
against practices (especially with regard to assessment and feedback) that are recognised sector-wide as good
practice.
The Open University suggests that such anomalies in behaviour relate to the desire of the change adopter to
understand the risks involved. Using valuable time to trial a new tool or approach involves risk and, conversely,
doing nothing also involves a risk. Therefore, individuals seek reassurance that the risk is worthwhile and,
presumably, the greater the perceived risk the greater the demand for evidence to ‘prove’ it will work and the
greater the trust the individual or team must have in that reassurance. This may also be compounded by the fear
that a new approach will reveal deficiencies in existing practice or result in loss of autonomy.
There are many examples where those resisting change continue to ask for evermore evidence or guarantees.
The University of Huddersfield has undertaken considerable research into electronic assessment management
(EAM) and concludes that the risk aversion that leads institutions to procrastinate and demand evermore and
better evidence is resulting in them muddling along with costly and sub-optimal solutions.
Senior managers in HEIs are keen to adopt new strategies for managing assessment, but many
feel reluctant to do so because of the perceived risks involved. Key amongst these risks is the
concern that implementing EAM strategies will invite strong resistance from academic staff and that
a system which is not reliable and/or robust will generate distrust and dissatisfaction amongst
students. Lesser amongst the risks, but which are nevertheless significant, are training,
procurement and data management issues; these all bring with them potentially significant costs as
well as risk. In terms of training, concerns that students will struggle with electronic submission
systems remain high. So, while institutions are keen to adopt EAM strategies as quickly as they
can, many are also feeling hesitant to do so. This leaves institutions running the risk of finding
themselves constantly stalling or, alternatively, developing radically over-engineered solutions

which are more cumbersome, costly and inflexible than they need to be.
University of Huddersfield, EBEAM project final report
4 “I don’t really need to use it.”
This approach questions on what basis a problem, and hence a need, has been identified. The fact that it may
even be a contractual requirement or part of the institutional process will not guarantee effective or productive use.
Demonstrating need can often be difficult due to the fact that many of the current measures of quality have
emerged to measure current practices not new practices. It is therefore difficult to argue, for example, for greater
collaboration across module production teams if no one has data to show this is an issue or if management has
not recognised it as such. The managing course information infoKit has some interesting examples of where
analysing data about the curriculum and about assessment practice has led to large-scale change.
5 Initiative fatigue
The broader organisational and further and higher education context is important. Many change projects describe
staff within their organisation as suffering from initiative fatigue. The technology you are trying to implement may
be just one of many changes taking place internally and externally. The perception that new tools or approaches
represent a generalised shift to top-down control of teaching and learning can also distort how staff understand
and respond to the case for adopting new tools and working practices.
Probably the single technology innovation that has most divided the academic community are tools that permit
online marking of student assignments. Views can be extremely polarised and highly personal. For example:
those resisting the change may cite age as a relevant factor and state that on-screen marking causes them
eye strain
advocates, on the other hand, may state (again citing their age as relevant) that not having to carry heavy
piles of essays is a significant benefit as is the ability to make use of the accessibility functions available on
screen such as being able to adjust font size and colour for ease of reading
A large scale study of attitudes to e-marking was carried out by the University of Huddersfield and the material in
this section is drawn from the report on the eBEAM project published in 2013. The study identified that academic
staff attitudes are split into three main groups:
those who are innovators or early adopters and have migrated enthusiastically to e-marking
those who have approached it more cautiously
those who have done so reluctantly or have tried it and then moved back to paper marking
The University states that: “Our experience has proven that a particularly effective way of managing the transition
to e-marking is to allow each of these groups to continue working (ie to continue to undertake their marking) is the
way that they feel most comfortable and the consequence is that the movement from paper to e-marking happens
organically. This is a time-consuming strategy (in that it will probably take several academic years to achieve) but
it is a process that will generate the least disgruntlement and hostility.”
The aim is to achieve ‘critical mass’ whereby e-marking becomes established as the ‘norm’ and those who are
reluctant to mark electronically become the exceptions rather than the rule. To achieve this critical mass, the bulk
of academic staff (ie those who are neither early adopters or especially resistant or reluctant) need to find it easier
and more rewarding to move onto electronic marking than to stay in a paper-based system. This middle group is,
therefore, the most strategically important although it is important to build a strategy and a system which provides
each group with the support they need.
They note however that such an organic strategy requires concomitant pressure provided by strategic policy
decisions. This pressure comes in the form of change agency from early adopters, from systems that are
designed to reward academic staff who adopt e-marking (eg by lightening their administration load) and from

student demand. By offering rewards and applying pressure in a consistent way, moving away from paper-based
marking and into e-marking makes the most sense to as many academics as possible.
Because the attitudes of these three groups to e-marking are so different, implementation strategies need to be
sensitive to all of them and it is worth looking at the experiences of those in each group in more detail.
Early adopters
The early adopters tend to have chosen to use e-marking themselves or have been relieved when it has been
required of them. This group of staff wanted to like e-marking and expected to do so when they adopted it. This
group has remained happy with e-marking and reports a wide range of benefits, some of which were
unanticipated. For the most part they report needing little if any training or support, having found the technology
and interface to be both intuitive and pleasant to use. This group tends to prefer working with electronic rather than
with paper-based systems. They identify as ‘tech-savvy’ and are happy (even proud) to admit that they are not
good with paper. They also tend to be very resilient, particularly to outages and to absorbing aspects of the new
system that they find less than ideal. They tend to seek or readily accept ‘work-arounds’ to solve the problems or
limitations they encounter.
These colleagues are the ones leading the way with e-marking and are already using electronic marking systems
(very often of their own devising) in institutions around the world often despite the institutional policies and
strategies that are in place. From an institutional and operational point of view, while this group are going to be the
least ‘difficult’ in terms of convincing them into e-marking, it is vital that any institutional policy does not neglect
them or their needs. They should experience rewards in the form of lightening of administrative workload
associated with assessment, the benefits of economy of scale that comes with automation and batch handling (eg
for marks entry) and opportunities to experience their work being praised and appreciated by both the institution
and its students. The message here is clear: for e-marking to work effectively and for its adoption to be smooth the
administrative conditions must be designed to accommodate and reward it prior to its adoption.
Healthy sceptics
The second group of academic staff have been more reluctant and less enthusiastic than the early adopters. They
have approached e-marking with a healthy dose of scepticism in that they had no pre-established expectations of
liking it or disliking it. The University of Huddersfield evaluation found that this group were the most objective of
the three and evaluated their experiences without any bias in favour of or against electronic marking systems per
se. This is probably best exemplified by the fact that even if they had anticipated problems with e-marking and
these had not been realised, they were happy to say so. This group are characterised by not being prepared to
tolerate interfaces which felt unnecessarily difficult or cumbersome to use. They have been persuaded to convert
to e-marking either because of the benefits experiences by their colleagues, or because of other demonstrable
benefits, such as the promise of a lightening of their assessment administration burden, or by student demand.
From an institutional and operational point of view, it is especially important that the move onto e-marking is
comfortable and happy for this group of staff; their doing so offers the all-important critical mass that allows it to
become normative. For this group to make the move, there are three important factors that need to be in place:
1. it is important that they receive reassurance from colleagues who have already adopted the technology. For
this, clear lines of communication need to be established between the early adopters and this group such
that the early adopters can function as ‘change agents’. Having the early adopters support and train this
group (rather than technology support staff) so that they can communicate the benefits directly and first
hand is an ideal way of achieving this.
2. the system must be set up in such a way that there are demonstrable and tangible benefits to staff when
they move onto it.

3. it is important that they clearly hear the student perceptions of electronic marking so that they can get a
clear message that moving on to e-marking will improve their students’ learning experiences.
The simple act of forcing this group of staff to mark their work electronically can be an effective strategy but
only if they are junior to, or less powerful than, those requiring them to make the move. This strategy is less
likely to be effective for staff who have autonomy over their own work and marking practices.
Reluctant staff
Those staff who were reluctant users of the technology or who had abandoned the use of it report that the medium
of online marking fundamentally alters the marking experience, compelling them to relinquish their own hard-won
strategies for dealing with this often challenging and burdensome aspect of their role. This was described by them
as a frustrating and even painful experience. There is, however, evidence that at least part of their reluctance
stems from a resistance to change in general and to giving up the paper-based systems with which they are
familiar and comfortable in particular. Their reluctance tends to be articulated in discourses that are suspicious of
new technologies (such as screen-reading, typed feedback and audio recorded comments) while valorising older
technologies (such as paper, handwriting and face to face communication). It is likely that the self-identification of
these staff members is, at least in part, wrapped up in ‘old school’ and traditional values. For them, a move to
something as radical as online marking can even feel like a betrayal of these values.
It is fair to say that these staff do not want to like online marking. They tend to seek out and emphasise those
aspects they did not like or those which did not fit with their established workflow and/or their pedagogical
approach to marking. These staff tend to make assumptions about the older technologies feeling more personal,
more authentic and therefore more engaging than the new technologies even though evidence shows that only a
small minority of students share this opinion.
For successful adoption by this group of staff, patience is required. A policy of simply forcing all academics to mark
electronically is going to be least popular and therefore least successful with this group. From a change
management perspective, it is important to allow this group to retain a sense of agency and autonomy over their
work and their decisions while at the same time challenging their assumptions (where there is little or no actual
evidence to support them) and making it clear that their current way of working will mean that they will be required
to continue undertaking administrative tasks that their colleagues who do adopt e-marking will not. It will also need
to be made clear to them that their way of working will eventually not be considered normative or even acceptable.
Sensitive and more extensive, in-depth support and training is needed to smooth the transition for these
colleagues. It is particularly important to help them perceive the attendant benefits that their colleagues have been
able to independently identify. It is also likely that self-paced, on-demand support and training, particularly that
which is designed to ameliorate the negative effects of simply not knowing where to click, is going to be vital to
their movement to e-marking. It is also important to allow them to justify their decision to move to e-marking in
ways that make sense to them and help them maintain their sense of identity and agency. A good example is the
sense of embarrassment that many of these colleagues articulated because they had printed student work to read
it rather than reading it on screen. This was often described as an ‘admission’ and the causes for it were explained
as being a result of their age or previous experience. This may indeed be a way of displacing the true cause of
their reluctance given that so many colleagues who are the same age and have the same previous experience did
not report sharing that preference. However, allowing these staff the licence to continue to articulate, and therefore
displace, the real causes for their reluctance in this way is probably strategically useful.
The notion of Transition Management as being a separate from, but related to, change management is largely the
work of Bridges (1998). Transition is different from change and it is very often the transition that people resist – not
the change itself. The transition needs to be understood and managed especially where the change is radical.
Staff will be at different stages along the change curve and the emotional response to change needs to be
recognised. Leaders of change should also consider their own transition.
Change involves a shift in the external situation it is about the events or circumstances which impact on and affect
the organisation. For example, the new leader, changes in government policy, technology, student expectations,
merger etc. Thus, change is typically outcome or results focused, in that organisational change is usually a

solution to someone’s perception of a problem or an opportunity.
Transition is an internal, three-phase psychological re-orientation that people go through as they come to terms
with a change. It is a process, an inner experience not necessarily focused on outcome or results. It is timed
differently from the external changes, and has less definition than the changes it accompanies.
It’s often transition not change that people resist. They resist giving up their sense of who they are, their identity as
it is expressed in their current work. They resist the chaos and uncertainty of the neutral zone – the in-between
state. They resist the risky business of a new beginning – doing and being what they have never done and been
before. In order to effect change it is important to help people through the transition. Transitions associated with
major upheavals might include major changes to roles and responsibilities, mergers of departments, schools or
areas and, ultimately, loss of jobs.
There are three phases of the transition process:
Endings
Neutral Zone
New Beginnings
The body language has changed dramatically. People are now much keener to get involved. Once
you get people engaged, you can then start to move along through the transition.From Effects of
Business Development and Knowledge Transfer on institutional culture Case Study
You have to end before you begin
Frequently people talk about what’s about to begin and there is no mention of what has to end. No one can
develop a new identity or a new purpose until he or she has let go of the old one. It is best to deal with endings
realistically and help people gain closure on the past. They will move on more readily and take advantage of what
the future has to offer if you do.
Between the ending and the new beginning, there is a hiatus
In between letting go of the old way and taking hold of the new, there is a difficult journey through the wilderness or
‘a time in between the trapezes’. This is a dangerous time when systems don’t work well and people lose heart
easily. People need to know that it is usual to go through a chaotic interim between letting go and taking hold again
and that it’s normal to be discouraged and confused by the experience. Build in temporary sources of support and
ways that people can feel in control by being involved in decisions that affect them.
The hiatus can be a creative time
The same forces that make the in-between time difficult, mean that the normal resistances to new ideas and new
behaviours don’t work well either. For that reason, the interim is a potentially creative time, when new things can
be introduced more quickly and easily than usual. This can be a time to step back and take stock, to try new things
and a time to view every problem as an opportunity to abandon outmoded ways and create more adaptive and
effective ones.
Transition is developmental
What ends is often not just a particular situation but a whole chapter and stage of development in the
organisation’s life cycle. Behind the scenes, a new organisation is taking shape. This is easier to see in retrospect,
but it’s worth remembering at the time that there is a purpose to all the distress and disturbance. Assist people to
see that the old way was fine for its’ time, but a new chapter is needed for a new day. It is also very important for
managers to publicly identify, protect and carry forward the parts of the past that are valuable and still viable.

Transition is also the source of renewal
The leap from one stage of development to another, like comparable leaps in nature, releases energy. That is why
organisations so often come out of a painful crisis with new energy and a new focus. Renewal for individuals or
groups comes from going through transition successfully, not in time away from the situation. Emphasise the need
to re-prioritise as a way of unloading irrelevant policies and procedures. Discontinuing the old ways can be a
release, especially if it is paired with an effort to clarify and celebrate the new mission, strategies and the new
identity that the organisation is growing into.
People go through transition at different speeds and in different ways
People get strung out along the path of transition like runners in a marathon. The leaders who designed the
change are often far out ahead. They had a head start; they feel more in control of their fate and probably aren’t
as personally affected as many of the rank and file. Some people are more resilient during change. Leaders
understand these things and communicate in terms that make sense from where people presently are, not just
where the leaders are.
Most organisations are running a transition deficit
Many organisations don’t give people a chance to complete the transition cycle. They think that they are saving
time by hurrying people, but actually all they are doing is leaving people with still more unfinished business to
carry along with them. Sooner or later the load will get too heavy, and some apparently small change will send the
whole system into transition bankruptcy. To keep that from happening, slow down. Listen more and talk less.
Investigate what old hurts and resentments may be getting in the way of people dealing directly with this transition.
Do whatever you can to address them and lay them to rest. Build your case that this time will be different – and
make sure it is!
The Timings of New Beginnings
Like any organic process, beginnings cannot be made to happen by a word or act. They happen when the timing
of the transition process allows them to happen, just as flowers and fruit appear on a schedule that is natural and
not subject to anyone’s will. That is why it is so important to understand the transition process and where people
are in it.
Only when you get into people’s shoes and feel what they are feeling can you help them to manage their transition.
More beginnings abort because they were not preceded by well-managed endings and neutral zones than for any
other reason.
But if beginnings cannot be forced according to one’s personal wishes, they can be encouraged, supported and
reinforced. You cannot turn the key or flip the switch, but you can cultivate the ground and provide the
nourishment. What you can do falls under four headings:
You can explain the basic purpose behind the outcome you seek. People have to understand the logic of it
before they turn their minds to work on it.
You can put a picture of how the outcome will look and feel. People need to experience it imaginatively
before they can give their hearts to it.
You can lay out a step-by-step plan for phasing in the outcome. People need a clear idea of how they can
get where they need to go.
You can give each person a part to play in both the plan and the outcome itself. People need a tangible way
to contribute and participate.
Success breeds success – disseminate and adapt models for your own purpose and needs.

Many of the above reactions arise from uncertainty about how the change will impact individuals and teams. The
following check lists give some pointers as to how you might identify the major uncertainties that worry people and
start to address them. We suggest that you address the individual fears as the first priority. Even where people are
severely affected and negotiation is impossible you should treat the fears in a fair manner and with a sense of
urgency.
Individual fears
FEAR Type
Nagging
Question Response Priority Coping strategy
Job loss
Will I have a job
after the changes?
Clarify if this is the case
Be prepared to answer tough
questions
High
Immediate
response
required
Competent HR team,
devoting time to the
affected from the
changes
Assistance with finding
new job
Counselling
Stress management
Union support
Degree of
change
Will I personally
have to change
too many things?
Clarify if this is the case
Emphasise usefulness of
changes and benefits in the long
run
Medium to
high
What is
expected of
each
member of
staff?
Communications
strategy and clarity in
promoting changes
Realistic expectations
of amount of change at
any one time
Provide training
Salary and
contract
Will there be
change to my
contract/salary?
Clarify if this is a permanent or
temporary measure, whether this
comes as an incentive for the
changes to be introduced
Medium to
high
Contract
clarity needs
to be
observed at
all times
Knowledgeable and
supportive HR team
Perks and
the spoil
factor
Will I lose my
parking
space/company
car etc?
Will there be
changes to my
pension/holiday
entitlement
Clarify
Justify actions, be prepared to
answer tough questions
Medium to
high
Be aware of perks and
how staff view them
Look for alternatives

Personal
Status
Will I be gaining or
losing status as a
result of the
changes?
Clarify immediately
Be prepared to answer tough
questions
High Be honest
Provide personal
recognition and
supportIdentify ways in
which status can be
enhanced
Physical
environment
Will I have to
change desks/
offices/
buildings/sites?
Clarify at local level: if this is a
permanent or temporary
measure
Are there any incentives for
relocation?
Any efficiencies to be achieved?
Medium to
high
Will the new
environment be better –
if so in what ways?
Are there long-term
advantages
Don’t promise what you
can’t deliver
Technology
Will I get a new
computer, or will I
inherit someone
else’s old
machine?
Will I have a direct
line?
Will I be able to
cope with the new
technology?
Clarify at local level if
‘technology’ is going to be
affected by the changes
Low to
medium
Deal with uncertainty
Provide training and
mentoring where
necessary
Career
development
Would the change
enhance my
opportunities?
How would the
changes affect my
career?
Clarify possibilities for career
opportunities
Medium Talk 1:1 about longer
term possibilities and
what needs to be
achieved to get there
Overall
Personal
What’s in it for
me?
Push or pull?
Clarify issues
Resolve issues or look for
alternative solutions
High Talk to those most
affected and hear their
concerns
See Transition
Management
FEAR Type
Nagging
Question Response Priority Coping strategy
Team fears
FEAR Type Nagging Question Response Priority Coping Strategy
Purpose of the
team
Are we clear what we
are trying to achieve?
Be clear about the new
purpose
High This requires more than
just communication – but
for staff to work with and
explore the proposed new
reality

Change to
standards,
procedures
Will we be working to
different standards?
Clarify if this is the case;
justify changes
High Immediate, uniform
response requiredEnsure
standards and
procedures are clear
Communication strategy,
backing the business
case for change
Morale and team
spirit
Will we get on
together?
If values and beliefs are
affected at individual level,
morale and team spirit might
be affected too
Clarification and
reassurance is needed
High Celebration of success,
and incentives for the
change need to be
provided
Away days or similar
events thinking about the
new future
Training and
development
Will we need to
acquire new skills as
a result of introducing
the changes?
Clarification and training
needs analysis to be
conducted
High Address team needs
Team training can help
cement new teams and
identify tensions
Communications
within the team
and with others
Will we know what’s
going on?
Identify how issues will be
communicated amongst
team
Medium Provide clear
communication structures
Recognise importance of
informal as well as formal
communication channels
Discuss dissemination
plan
FEAR Type Nagging Question Response Priority Coping Strategy
It can be a bit scary… I think managers should come clean on it and say it will be a bit scary and if
they don’t and say ‘Oh no it will be fine’ there will be people who will be sitting there and thinking
‘Oh no they are saying it should be fine and I am scared to death so there must be something
wrong with me’ and there will be managers who are scared too.Head of Support Department, Pre
’92 University.
In a transition there are emotional responses to the losses that people experience because of the changes. This is
normal but often these responses are taken by others as signs that the change is being resisted. Those leading
change need to recognise these emotions in others and themselves, and develop ways to manage their own
emotions and assist others to manage theirs. Unmanaged, these responses may undermine the changes and
have personal consequences.
This process has been likened, psychologically, to the grieving process.
Everyone deals with such major changes in their own way but we can identify a number of stages that staff might
go through.
Each of the stages in the process needs to be recognised and responded to accordingly. For example, it’s no good
expecting grudging acceptance when staff are still in shock. You are more likely to get anger and no argument, no
matter how reasonable to you, is likely to win staff around.
For those, managing the change, the challenge is to get staff through from shock to grudging acceptance in as fast
a time as possible whilst minimising stress and limiting the effect on other areas of the organisation.

Shock and denial
Distrust
Anger and guilt
Depression, anxiety and stress
Regret
Acceptance
I couldn’t believe it! We had agreed to work towards building up student numbers in the department
at a previous consultation meeting. The final decision to close us down came out of the blue. I still
don’t understand the criteria for the decision.
No matter how well impending decisions have been trailed – once they become known there is a period of shock.
People refuse to believe them at first – all large organisations abound with rumours that never come to fruition.
The shock stage is usually short-lived. Actions to take include:
Communicate the broad headline issues, the reasons for change and the actions that will happen
Don’t expect people to make decisions or take actions people will not be interested about the future as
much as the past
Be available and prepared to listen
Think about a strategy to help staff through the remaining stages of the process
There were other departments that weren’t recruiting well but it was decided that ours should be
the one to go. The data that was at the heart of the decision wasn’t trusted by many academics
throughout the institution.
After the shock employees may feel as though ‘the rug has been pulled out from under them’. The trust level
within the organisation drops, and people who feel betrayed develop a generally suspicious, ‘save-your-own-skin’
attitude. Some organisations have reported suspicion among peers and a withholding of information for fear of
advancing somebody else’s interests. Actions here include:
Communicate again the reasons and who is likely to be involved
Clarify and make clear the timescales for the decision-making process – and ensure these are kept to
Be honest about the future
Don’t develop a blame culture – deal with issues not people
Be available – but don’t expect a rush of people to talk to you
People were very angry. The Unions were involved and the case went to tribunal which the
institution lost. Three years on, some people are still angry about how it was handled.
Change creates winners (those who benefit from the change) and losers (those who don’t). The winners can often
feel guilty and the messengers of the change may also feel guilty. Guilty people usually express their feelings
indirectly and may feel uncomfortable around the losers. They may overcompensate (‘don’t blame me, I didn’t plan
this change’) or they may even blame and/or patronize the losers for not being able to cope with the change well.
This can also affect communication – those not involved don’t know what to say to those that are, leading to an

even greater sense of alienation by those most affected.
Those who don’t benefit from the change or those whose friends/colleagues don’t benefit can feel resentment,
especially towards the hierarchy. They can become angry, blame the organisation and can look for ways to
payback (working slowly, leaving work undone, leaking documents, making mistakes or organising opposition).
At this stage:
Provide opportunities to let off steam
Expect open anger from some staff and acknowledge it as a natural reaction
Respond with empathy to people’s sense of loss
Start to explain the need for change in more detail but don’t expect to be listened to straight away
Be careful about the wording of even confidential documents – they may become public
Don’t expect engagement in new processes or decision-making at this stage
The response to the decision was that people started looking for other jobs and in the middle of the
year some staff left which put the rest of us in a difficult position. This was very de-motivating and
very stressful.
Some people get anxious from the first rumour of change and when the changes are complete they then worry
about the next set of changes. Nervousness, working extra time and taking on extra work to ‘please the boss’ can
be examples of how some employees respond to change.
If I get more paperwork out, start the day earlier and stay later, come in on weekends, maybe I’ll get
to stay or keep my staff or this office.
Anxiety can be a stimulus initially but can eventually lead to a decline in focus on tasks and reduce motivation,
energy and adaptability. Stress and its negative effects usually accompany this behaviour. It is instructive to note
that absenteeism, medical claims, stress related claims all increase at times of significant organisational change
(although there may be a few months lag time).
Living with the anxiety of the unknown associated with a change can create fears that taking risks and setting
work goals too high or being too creative may result in displeasing the boss.
Goals are set low, creative approaches to problem solving are scarce, and no one wants to take any chances of
looking bad.
Some people focus on ‘How does this affect me? What will happen to me?’ Transitions focus people back on
themselves, which can undermine teamwork and increase competition for positions as well as undermine
customer service. It is hard to take care of others when you are preoccupied with your own survival. Self-
absorption can also undermine loyalty and commitment to the organisation.
It’s important to try to move through this stage as quickly as possible:
Accept some temporary lack of motivation
Talk to staff
Reinforce the reasons for change and stress that the decision is not necessarily a reflection on the abilities
of those involved. Rebuild confidence and self-esteem
Recognise that this may not be the best time for creativity

Provide counselling if necessary
I felt that I had been loyal to the institution and expected some loyalty in return. I felt isolated from
the institution, not informed and not valued. I really feel that it could have been handled better. The
worst aspect was the uncertainty.
This is a more positive stage. Staff have come to terms with the change and its personal affects. In the mind, the
past always represents a better time and a regret for its passing is natural. The challenge is to ensure that staff
don’t stay in the past and revert to old ways but engage actively in the new reality.
Start communicating the future and set out the decisions to be taken
Discuss new roles
Set short-term goals that are achievable
Be positive but realistic
At this stage it can be useful to have a wake for the old ways – celebrating what was achieved and drawing
a line under the past
I always acted in the best interests of my students. This was difficult at first but I have now become
accustomed to my new role and new opportunities have opened up.
This stage is assisted by moving from short-term to long-term vision and building and embedding the new reality.
Don’t dwell on the past. This is the time to start enthusing about the future.
Celebrate new successes
Make sure everyone is clear about new roles
Don’t expect a radical change overnight – major wounds take a while to heal
Convert complaints to action
Promote personal responsibility and accountability
Delegate as much as possible where appropriate
Model new behaviours
Reduce the number of meetings relating specifically to change
Document any new procedures
Revise Job Descriptions and Performance Objectives
The three stages of transition are shown in a Transition Curve and whilst this curve is over simplified, it is a useful
tool for understanding the sorts of issues people might be facing during a change.

Three phases of transition
When managing change it’s important to recognise that transition is an individual reaction. The role of managers is
to help others through to new beginnings whilst maintaining the level of activity or service. Here are some points to
bear in mind when assessing where people are on the transition curve.
Some people repeat sections of the curve to best handle transition (there’s no right or wrong sequence).
People will exhibit different emotions depending upon the nature and number of changes occurring to them
at the same time and their ‘emotional intelligence’. This is normal.
Realising where you and the people around you are on the curve will help you initiate appropriate actions
and respond effectively.
Teams may travel the curve together but individuals will arrive at ‘beginnings’ at their own personal rate.
It’s OK to be slow so long as you’re moving and not stuck somewhere.
It’s OK to be slow so long as you’re planning on arriving sometime.
It’s OK to be fast so long as you’re tolerant and supportive of slower travellers.
It’s OK to be fast so long as you honestly acknowledge your own ‘endings’.

Checklists
Checklist of actions to consider in the endings zone, neutral zone and new beginnings zone.
Transition curve checklists – change management
Understanding Endings
In the ‘Endings’ stage, staff may want to deny the existence of the initiative and other related change events. Their
denial can move them to fear and uncertainty about the future. This diminishes their level of activity and readiness
to deal with the accelerating pace of change as the process starts to impact on the organisation.
Staff may acutely feel the loss of the familiarity and security they felt in the organisation before this and other
changes occurred. They are likely to be trying to reconcile or accept the fact that things will now be different from
the way they have been. They will be trying to accept that they will have to let go of their current sense of identity in
the organisation.
Understanding the Neutral Zone
The Neutral Zone or exploration stage is the time between the current and the desired state. Staff will be
attempting to orient themselves to the new requirements and behaviours. During this time, they will be confused
about the future and will feel overloaded with competing demands.
This can have a negative impact on activities. Because things can be chaotic at this stage, staff may question the
status quo or the accepted way of doing things. It is important to note that with encouragement this stage can be a
time of exploration that is ripe with creative opportunity.
Understanding New Beginnings
The New Beginnings stage of the Transition Curve is that time when people are ready to commit to the new
direction and the change. They feel secure in the new organisation and are ready to function as a significant
contributor. This typically occurs as the initiative starts to achieve some of its desired goals.
Once you are into the implementation stage of your project you may find that you start to experience the Knowing-
Doing Gap. Quite simply you know what needs to be done, you think you have put the right structures and
processes in place but for some reason this hasn’t translated into the right sort of response. Pfeffer & Sutton
(2000) identify a number of factors that contribute to this gap:
Pseudo-action Deceptions:
Thinking that knowing is sufficient for success.
Thinking that talking (meetings, committees, reports, etc.) is action.
Thinking that measuring things is action or contributes to performance.
Thinking that making a decision is the same as taking action.
Thinking that planning is the same as action.
Clogging the Gap by giving in to the Inhibitions of Fear:
Fearing complexity, lack of clarity about what specifically to do.
Fearing risk, mistakes, errors, and imperfection.
Fearing competition, focusing on what others are doing and trying to get ahead.
Fearing the new, the different, the unpredictable, falling back on precedence (standard operating
procedures) and so mindlessly defaulting to what you’ve always done.

Taboos that prevent and forbid action:
‘Don’t make a fool of yourself.’
‘Don’t risk making a mistake, it’s too dangerous.’
‘Don’t be imperfect.’
Lack of structure for action:
No structure for following up.
No structure for rewarding learning from mistakes.
No structure for rewarding risk taking.
Personal items predisposing us from taking action:
Not being action oriented in our person, being inactive and passive.
Making excuses and letting excuses stop us.
Discounting small actions.
Angehrn (2005) has shown how the gap links to the phases of adoption of a change:
The Knowing-Doing Gap –
Angehrn (2005)
If you recognise these symptoms in
your change project you need to
identify the underlying causes. If there
seems to be a particular problem area
you might try using the 5 Whys
tool again to get to the root of the
problem.
Templates
Reality check
If your change project seems to be stagnating, you experience the Knowing-Doing Gap and you cannot readily
identify the main problem area/s then it is time for you to do a Reality Check and apply corrective measures.
This is a 3 stage process:
1. Conduct a reality check
2. Apply corrective measures
3. Monitor the results
At the first stage you will need to review two key things:
the need for change and its relevance to the present climate,
if we had achieved the objectives of the change, how would the present be different?
Even if the change now isn’t relevant, there is value in undertaking a review to draw lessons for the future.
Sweeping failure under the carpet is a way of encouraging a culture of blame not a culture of change.
Two supplementary questions are also important to help ensure that we don’t make the same mistakes again if we

re-invigorate the process:
1. Why didn’t we recognise the signs that the change effort was not on track?
2. Why didn’t we do anything about it?
This analysis can be undertaken individually but is best done as part of an activity which involves the original
change team and possibly representatives of the key stakeholders.
This analysis will provide the basis for creating the measures required to restart the process (if it is assessed as
both still necessary and feasible).
Actions that can be taken include:
Restructuring the team
Rebranding
Higher profile involvement from senior management
Response to staff concerns
Greater investment (time, people, finance)
Getting some well-known and respected staff involved
Re-set SMART targets
Staff development
Reviving a stalled effort will raise questions in people’s minds – ‘we’ve been there, we’ve done that’ an attitude
can be hard to work with, and people will need to be reassured that the business case for change is sound, and
that their involvement will bring both personal and professional reward, otherwise the effort will be doomed to work
against the resistance and the bitter experience of non-achievement.
In this infoKit we offer a multitude of tools that can help at each stage of this change process. For example, if you
found that the aims and objectives of the failed change were not clear to stakeholders, you could
use Clarimission to synthesise the aims of the change, and to achieve common understanding of the aims.
This is probably your last chance to effect the change – failure again will be almost certain death to the initiative so
putting in place effective monitoring process is important to ensure that any early signs of faltering can be picked-
up and responded to.
Top management was the face of the change, and it was their responsibility to find a way of going
around the barriers of change, to ensure the change effort was resourced, to recognise the need to
empower people at the shop floor level and to communicate clearly the vision for the change.
Nothing more than to ‘walk the talk’.
Resource allocation is absolutely crucial – if you really want to effect change you’ve got to be able
to direct resources in the way of that change.
Templates
Post-project review form

Is a change process ever over? How do you know when it is time to give up and move on to other things? In the
real world the change often just becomes mainstream, part of the way in which we do things, and other change
processes come to dominate our lives. Occasionally we can become fixated by the change and pursue it to the
death even when the return on the effort is marginal. This can be the case when people are given specific projects
to complete with no clear exit strategy. So the purpose of this section is to explore the notion of completion.
There are a number of signs that a change process has reached the end of its life-time. This doesn’t necessarily
mean that it’s been successful – it could mean that it has just lost momentum and will need reviving to effect the
desired change.
People stop calling meetings.
People stop coming to meetings.
The change is now embedded in practice.
Other committees and groups have taken it on board as part of their agenda.
The original drivers no longer exist or the change process has been overtaken by other events.
Senior management support has evaporated.
Staff talk positively about it if there is talk of changing it further.
The resources have run out.
Staff are tired of the rhetoric.
Things to do to aid completion:
Go back to the earlier aims of the change process (if you can find them) and assess the extent to which
they have been met.
Reinvent the change process (if the desired changes weren’t met but are still valid).
Redesign the change process if the change has only been partially met.
Check whether any staff appointed to be involved in the change process need to be re-assigned?
Check whether other staff affected by the change process now need to have their roles redefined to
accommodate changes in working practices.
Write a final report (and circulate widely) to indicate a formal end.
Draw a formal line under the process by a paper to a formal meeting.
Let everyone know that the project has come to an end – caution: this can lead to people not taking the
change seriously any longer and regressing into old ways.
Evaluation is an essential part of this process whether or not the change achieved the desired outcome. If you
set SMART targets in the first place you should be well on your way to being able to say how well you met your
aims but don’t expect that it will be easy to identify clear cause and effect relationships. The complexity of
measuring institutional transformation is discussed in a Jisc blog post entitled: “Tracks in the snow: finding and
making sense of the evidence for institutional transformation”.
You may also find the Post Project Review template helpful.
If you achieved your aims – congratulations!
Q. How many consultants does it take to change a light bulb in HE?
A. Only one, but the culture will change it back again as soon as they have left.
The joke on the right sums up the difficulty of actually sustaining a change that has been made and ensuring that it

becomes embedded in normal working practice. All too often once a project is over people simply slip back into
old ways of doing things.
The University of Strathclyde experienced the reluctance of staff to give up familiar ways of working when it
implemented a single source of curriculum information (known as C-CAP) to replace disparate paper-based
systems. It experienced what it describes as “unexpected system use behaviour” whereby academics continued
to work as they had always done and attach documents to the online system rather than completing the
information online.
This preference among academic participants for using MS Word was found not to be just
theoretical but was also observed during C-CAP piloting. Piloting of C-CAP revealed unexpected
system use behaviour whereby certain sections of course and class proposals were left incomplete;
instead, the requested curriculum information was contained in a number of separate MS Word
attachments, uploaded at various sections of the proposal. The consequence of such system
behaviour for the other approval processes C-CAP supports is catastrophic. Important curriculum
information or data cannot be captured in a structured manner, thereby compromising subsequent
information extraction or reuse and subverting the underlying process.
University of Strathclyde, Principles in Pattern evaluation final report
In examples such as this staff need to be aware of the wider consequences of their activities and to understand
how the data may be used in other parts of the organisation as well as for fulfilling their element of the process.
The University of Central Lancashire had a similar experience following a major restructuring exercise in 2008
which removed its faculty layer and devolved greater responsibility to its schools. Faculty services such as
marketing, programme administration, finance etc, were moved to existing central services that provided support
across all schools. Post restructure however the University noted a growing trend for schools to request the
creation of new roles, to undertake duties that should be completed centrally. Some of these requests related to
differences between the disciplines e.g. Nursing students require significant placement support, while lab-based
students require greater technical supervision but others related to a failure to update business processes
following the restructure and a lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities. Central services noted they had to do
the same task a variety of ways depending on the schools’ demands and schools themselves admitted that, “some
of the variance is down to personal preference”. A change project was instigated to address this and you can find
out more in the project case study.
To be properly embedded change must be reflected in our organisational strategy and policy, be operationalised in
the form of business processes and be supported by information systems and infrastructure. Change can be
subverted or reversed if it is not adequately supported by all of these elements or if the reasoning behind it is not
communicated to, and accepted by, stakeholders.
The Jisc Transformations programme funded 58 projects between 2011 and 2013, helping them to effect large-
scale organisational change underpinned by ICT. During the programme’s final meeting a group of critical friends
got together with the programme support team and discussed a range of characteristics that were typical of
successful projects. It’s worth noting that no one project accomplished everything on the list below but tended to
excel in a couple of the areas described.
Characteristics of success
Projects were based within an institution that had a relative degree of stability
A set of principles, eg honesty, truthfulness, collegiality, reflection, perseverance, and flexibility, was
established at an early stage within the project and used to guide the project team
Project teams fully understood the institutional context at the start of the project and carried out a baseline
of their starting position which could be used to formally evaluate their progress

Members of the project had a thorough idea of the lines of communication and power within their institution
and how to exploit these
Projects had full buy-in from senior management for the project, and (for the most successful projects) an
infrastructure within the institution that was set up to facilitate that sort of project
Project teams involved stakeholders from the start and throughout
Staff from whom the project needed contributions were generally aware of the importance of the project’s
goals, if not to them, then at least to management or to external bodies to whom they were accountable (or
might need money from)
Projects took a realistic, informed and flexible approach to project timescales and outcomes. They adopted
different strategies to communicate and collaborate with stakeholders, different steps to achieve goals, or
altered goals in response to the changing environment or when previous strategies had not worked
Projects were provided with explicit time and attention to change existing processes, with reference to all
stakeholders – including the project team
Projects were often part of a larger programme of work and could benefit from collaborating with other
projects involved with the programme resulting in greater benefit to the institution
Risk management was taken seriously – identification, analysis, assessment, response planning and
monitoring and control
Projects don’t reinvent the wheel – instead they take a look at what others have done and build upon that
In this section we point to some interesting examples of change management within the post-compulsory
education sector. They range from examples of organisation-wide transformation to smaller steps that
nonetheless represent significant cultural shifts. We have focused on examples that are relatively recent at the
time of this update to the infoKit (2013/14) and, especially, on a number of projects that have drawn on and built
upon previous Jisc work rather than starting from scratch.
Examples in this section are drawn particularly from the following Jisc programmes:
Institutional approaches to curriculum design (2008-2012)
Curriculum design touches upon almost every aspect of an institution’s business processes from aligning its
portfolio of courses to its Mission, through market research and course development to quality assurance and
enhancement, resource allocation, timetabling, recruitment and assessment. However the curriculum also
encompasses the practice of educational design, based on sound understanding of how people learn and how
they develop as capable individuals with different subject specialisms. Curriculum design therefore represents a
complex interplay of administrative and pedagogic activities. At times these appear to be parallel worlds with
different stakeholders and vocabularies and change is fraught with difficulty. However, as a result of a four-year
programme of Jisc activity (2008 to 2012) we now have considerable insight into the relationship between these
activities and ways in which they can be better aligned conceptually and better supported by technology. You can
find more information about the outcomes on the Jisc Design Studio curriculum pages.
Birmingham City University: radical change to design processes
The University sought to transform the institutional culture and practice of curriculum design via a new approval
mechanism that represented a significant departure from previous arrangements. The proposal involved the
traditional validation event being replaced by a process during which an Academic Moderator oversees an
iterative development phase informed by stakeholder engagement with learners and employers and where
reflection on the design is evidenced by multimedia artefacts using a wide range of capture technology. The key
finding was that, despite a well thought out and executed programme of stakeholder engagement, shifts in culture
and pedagogy were slower than hoped for.
Leeds Metropolitan University: personalised learning
The University attempted to embed a new form of entirely negotiated learning through coaching. This presented

change management challenges in many forms: student readiness for new types of learning; business processes
that did not fit non-faculty-based learning and changes in University strategy during the life of the project. The
project report presents a very honest assessment of the challenges and how they were tackled. The project
ultimately achieved considerable success in enhancing learning and teaching practice through moving away from
the idea of a personalised curriculum for a particular target market and embedding the practice of coaching in the
curriculum in a more widespread way through staff development and working with student ambassadors.
Manchester Metropolitan University: radical change to business processes
The University reviewed processes supporting design and delivery of the curriculum and realised that the number
of interdependencies between processes makes it very hard to actually change anything. Their response to this
was to change everything! It was decided that an overhaul of the entire undergraduate curriculum and associated
processes was required. A re-write of the undergraduate curriculum, linking learning outcomes to employability
outcomes, revising the programme approval process, developing an online curriculum database and introducing
many new systems for students including a new VLE, personalised timetabling and online assessment submission
was accomplished within a year. The project report and evaluation are accompanied by a frank series of
stakeholder interviews presented as a publication entitled ‘In the throes of change’.
Open University: tools to support learning design
The University sought to enhance the pedagogic practice of learning design through the piloting and evaluation of
a range of tools to enhance practice and make, often tacit, design knowledge explicit. The project evaluation
report contains an interesting analysis on the discourse of resistance as regards academic use of the tools.
University of Strathclyde: lean and transparent business processes
This highly decentralised University took a somewhat surprising approach to reviewing its approval processes by
adopting a Lean approach. Lean is about adding value for the customer (in this case the student) through the
elimination of waste (non-value adding activities). Despite the distinctly non-academic language, the concepts
were applied to deliver considerable benefits in terms of improving curriculum processes. The project was an
interesting exercise in change management having to deal with many institutional myths and the evaluation
includes some in-depth analysis on resistance to use of the new technology. The overall outcome was however
that academic staff ultimately felt empowered by greater process transparency.
Assessment and feedback practice
Assessment and feedback lies at the heart of the learning experience, and forms a significant part of both
academic and administrative workload but it appears that, right across the UK, students are less satisfied with
assessment and feedback than with any other aspect of the higher education experience. A review of the
assessment and feedback landscape for Jisc in 2012 revealed that this is an area of practice that is “stubbornly
resistant to change”. The following case studies represent a few examples where significant change has been
achieved. See also the final summary of the outcomes of the Jisc assessment and feedback programme.
Bath Spa/Winchester Universities: students as partners
The Universities used Student Fellows to work with lecturers and students to develop technology for specific
assessment problems, and to evaluate its use. The Student Fellows were co-constructors of the research and
development acting as insiders and change agents, developing an understanding of assessment principles,
familiarity with technology, and research skills. The success of the initiative was such that it grew from an original
team of 17 Student Fellows to a total of 60. Some have even extended their brief to work on other areas of
technology innovation. Building on previous experience of working directly with students having furthered the
Research Informed Teaching agenda by means of the Winchester Research Apprenticeship Programme (WRAP)
the Student Fellow interactions were found to be qualitatively different because as Fellows the students are much
more in the driving seat and have considerable credibility and power in the discourse of change.
University of Dundee: centralised tutoring

The University set up a centralised online tutoring system, consisting of a blog and email and Twitter accounts, for
students on a distance learning programme. All programme communications between academic tutors,
administrators, participants and associate staff now take place via these utilities. The system allows tutors to give
better support to students as they have full access to all previous communications and, despite initial resistance, it
has improved staff satisfaction in a programme team that has seen its FTE halved over the last few years.
University of Huddersfield: electronic assessment management
The University has undertaken a large scale study of all aspects of electronic assessment management (EAM).
The report on this work looks at available technologies, business processes and the all important aspect of
attitudes of different groups of stakeholders and the change management approaches needed to successfully
implement EAM.
St Mary’s University College: audio feedback
The University was seeking to enhance the process of providing feedback and reviewing Jisc work in this area led
it to recognise the use of audio feedback as a potential way of transforming the timeliness and quality of feedback.
The context of this work is a collegial institution where the centre imposes relatively few requirements upon staff.
This means that the pace of change is slow and generally requires much persuasion and nurturing to implement.
Throughout the project the emphasis was on encouraging staff who were willing to test and then embed new
techniques into their practice to disseminate this to their colleagues.
Digital Literacies
Jisc has found the following definition of digital literacies to be useful:
By digital literacy we mean those capabilities which fit an individual for living, learning and working
in a digital society. For example, the use of digital tools to undertake academic research, writing
and critical thinking; digital professionalism; the use of specialist digital tools and data sets;
communicating ideas effectively in a range of media; producing, sharing and critically evaluating
information; collaborating in virtual networks; using digital technologies to support reflection
and PDP; managing digital reputation and showcasing achievements.
Developing such literacies can be a major change for both staff and students alike and there are many resources
from the Developing digital literacies programme available in the Jisc Design Studio to complement the following
examples from the Jisc Transformations programme.
Liverpool John Moores University: staff development
The University sought to improve the capacity of staff to support and engage with new, more online ways of
working essential for future success. It recognised however that change initiatives related to specific system
implementations often fail and lead to accusations that technology is driving the change. They therefore looked to
adopt a generic change programme promoting “Doing Digital” as “the way we do things round here”. The premise
behind the approach was that whilst projects deliver the capability to do things differently, there is a need to focus
on the change management necessary to ensure that changes in working practices are adopted to take
advantage of this new capability: to ensure that things are done differently
University of Westminster: employability
The University set out to explore digital literacy and its relationship to employability: they were also aware that
take-up of library induction sessions was a low despite a need for the skills. They found that 87% of students think
they are digitally literate and attracting them to training requires nuanced marketing to identify the benefits for
them. As a result of better understanding student attitudes the University developed the “Get the Digital Edge”
campaign which also includes guidance on relation to social media and employability.

University of Wolverhampton: international students
The University set out to improve the transition of international students into a blended learning environment,
through development of their digital literacies. There was a perception that there might be a digital divide
effectively excluding some students from their learning unless they were enabled to be comfortable and capable in
a digital environment. Furthermore, evidence from international student focus groups and interviews, indicated
that international students initially struggled with adapting to different pedagogies. They found that BYOD was
more prevalent than expected and that the ‘literacy’ issues students struggled with related particularly to digital
footprint, netiquette and information authenticity and use. The main outcomes of the project were a change to the
priorities that staff identified and new ideas on the way in which they might engage students. The University now
prefers to talk about digital fluency rather than literacy.
Student experience
Improving the overall quality of the student experience (hopefully with an impact on NSS scores) is a priority for
many learning providers. Working directly with students as active participants in change projects is a new
experience for many institutions but there is considerable good practice to draw on and it brings considerable
benefits.
There is more on the subject of students as change agents in the Jisc Design Studio.
University of Central Lancashire: student support
The University decided to respond to the changed fee regime by charging maximum fees and focusing on quality
of the student experience. It realised however that the diversity of its student support services and lack of
formalised information sharing could cause issues eg a bereaved student may require counselling, financial
support, academic support, etc. If each individual service was unaware of the student’s dealings with the others,
the student may have to repeat themselves several times adding to their distress. The University used an
enterprise architecture (EA) approach and drew on work at the University of Derby to undertake a service design
review of the process students go through to access support and to develop a new process that reduces the
number of touch points the student experiences and enables support services to respond more effectively to their
issues.
University of Cumbria: social media for transition and retention
The University investigated use of social media to support learner transition into HE and retention during the first
year of study. The context is a dispersed University with many part time and work-based learners and many work
placements during the first year. The work had a particular focus on making authentic examples of the study
experience, including teaching, learning and assessment activity (TLA), visible to pre-enrolment students to help
manage realistic expectations and the University described its ”emergent understanding of a virtual campus
constituting participation in TLA activity, rather than an emphasis on digital estate”. The work shows how
researching both the theory and practice of previous Jisc projects and understanding their context can make them
more useful and the University used previous Jisc project managers as critical friends.
University of Keele: student support
The University was keen to improve student support: the creation of a one-stop-shop for services was however
impossible due to the nature of the University estate and there was also a desire to make support available on a
24 x 7 basis. The University drew on experience of creating simulation tools for health study in order to create a
virtual Student Advisory Model (SAM). Students receive guidance from an avatar known as SAM (whose
characteristics are tailored according to those of the student enquirer). Keele University also used a service design
approach which prompted a review of how Keele manages and monitors its interactions with its students, both in
terms of recording individual interactions, and the nature of those interactions. The creation of a virtual service was
an interesting exercise in change ultimately welcomed by staff who felt it complemented what they already do and
freed up time for more value-added activity.
University of Lincoln: greening student accommodation

The University wished to support its environmental strategy by designing, evaluating and deploying an effective
student-led energy intervention for official student accommodation blocks. Student accommodation often offers
utilities as part of a fixed price tenancy agreement. The project is thus particularly interesting in change
management terms because it required the development of an in-depth understanding of student perspectives on
resource consumption in order to motivate them to participate when there were no specific financial rewards
(indeed the converse was probably true ie “it’s free so make the most of it”).
Data management
Poor data quality gets in the way of many learning providers meeting their strategic objectives and it is a
particularly thorny problem to tackle. Any attempt to improve business processes or supporting information
systems often needs to tackle data quality first thus raising all kinds of issues around culture, trust and ownership
making it imperative to employ change management skills as well as data and information management. The
managing course information infoKit has a lot of information on this topic as do the following case studies:
University of Bristol: data integration
The University attempted to tackle the problem of achieving full integration of data in its various learning, teaching
and research systems primarily in order to provide better quality data to support staff Performance Management
processes. The Performance Management project however later scaled down its IT ambitions and focused much
more on cultural change prompted by a realisation that IT alone shouldn’t be used to drive cultural change in this
sensitive area. This left the IT team to convince senior managers of the need for investment in middleware that
would have little immediately visible impact and also of the need for cultural change around data ownership. The
case study describes how it went about this by convincing people on the ground through identifying real pain
points that they could relate to and by the use of EA to deliver a roadmap and effective governance.
Canterbury Christ Church University: business intelligence
The University was keen to transform its approach to management information and move forward with a business
intelligence dashboard. This was seen as key to changing how the University works, communicates and delivers
the student experience. It was soon realised however that the quality of Finance and HR data was significantly
better than the quality of student data. The University’s Change Board considered whether to move forward
anyway in order to drive improvements to student data but, concluded that this would lead to a lack of confidence
in the Dashboard overall which would place the whole programme in jeopardy. A project to improve the quality of
student data was therefore undertaken first.
University of Falmouth: business intelligence
The University undertook a major initiative in terms of developing a new executive reporting service. It found
change management to be the biggest issue: there was a lack of trust in the data (both “at source” and “as
presented”). It also identified the need to create a culture shift amongst senior managers away from spreadsheet
thinking to an appreciation of the importance of high quality data and the need to fund backend personnel as an
inevitable focus on wanting explanations for short-term ‘bumps’ in the data, was directing resources towards knee-
jerk requests for ad-hoc reports. It also recognised that creating such a reporting service is a multidisciplinary
activity and that an IT focused solution would be bound to fail. The University also had an interesting observation
about how agile project management methodologies were being applied in practice:
We have found that the term ‘Agile’ is bandied about as cover for not following a process and not
providing documentation. If ‘Agile’ methods are to be used they should be formalised in the same
manner as any other methodology.
Ackerman, L. (1997) Development, transition or transformation: the question of change in organisations. In: Van
Eynde, D., Hoy, J. and Van Eynde, D. (eds) Organisation Development Classics. San Francisco, Jossey Bass.

Anghern, A. (2004) Behind the EIS Simulation: An overview of models underlying the simulation dynamics, CALT
Report. Available at: http://www.calt.insead.edu/eis/documents/EISSimulationUnderlyingModels.pdf [Accessed: 27
January 2014].
Arnstein, S. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation in the USA. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 4
pp 216-24.
Bridges, W. (1998) Leading Organizational Transitions. Available at: http://www.wmbridges.com. [Accessed: 27
January 2014].
Brown, J. & Isaacs, D. (2005) The world cafe: shaping our futures through conversations that matter. Berrett-
Koehler Publishers, Inc. San Francisco.
Conner, D.R. and Patterson, R.B. (1982) Building Commitment to Organizational Change. Training and
Development Journal, 36(4), 18-30.
Cooperrider, D. & Whitney, D. (2005) Appreciative Inquiry: a positive revolution in change. Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Inc. San Francisco.
Dawson, S.J.N.D. (1996) Analysing Organisations. Hampshire, Macmillan.
Fullan, M. (1999) Change Forces: The Sequel. Falmer Press.
Gladwell, M. (2000) The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Boston u.a.: Little, Brown.
Goldberg, M. (1997) The Art of the question: a guide to short term question centred therapy. Wiley, New York.
Higher Education Academy Resources on Facilitating Change. Available at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/change
[Accessed: 27 January 2014].
Hopkins, D. (2002) The Evolution of Strategies for Educational Change: Implications for Higher Education. LTSN
Generic Centre. Available at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/
—/The_evolution_of_strategies__for_educational_change [Accessed: 27 January 2014].
Kotter, J. (1995) Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail, Harvard Business Review, March-April.
Lewin, R. and Regine, B. (1999) The Soul at Work: Unleashing the power of complexity science for business
success. Orion Business.
Lockitt, W. (2004) Change Management. 3T Productions. Available at: http://archive.excellencegateway.org.uk/
…/CHANGE%20MANAGEMENT%20ISBN.pdf [Accessed: 27 January 2014].
Lucas, A. (1999) Six fallacies that stifle change – and how to overcome them. American Association for Higher
Education Bulletin November 1999.
McNay, I. (1995) From the collegial academy to the corporate enterprise: the changing cultures of universities in
Schuller, T. (ed) The Changing University? Buckingham, SRHE and the Open University press.
Mintzberg, H. (1989) Mintzberg on Management: inside our strange world of organisations Chicago, Free Press.
Markus, M.L. (1983) ‘Power, politics, and MIS implementation,’ Communications of the ACM, vol. 26, no. 6, June,
pp. 430–444.
Marquardt, M., Leonard, H. S., Freedman, A., & Hill, C. (2009) Action learning for developing leaders and
organizations: Principles, strategies, and cases. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Olson, E.E. and Eoyang, G.H. (2001) Facilitating Organizational Change: Lessons from Complexity Science.
Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Orlikowski, W. (1996) Improvising organisational transformation over time: a situated change perspective.
Information Systems Research, 7(1), p63-92.
Pennington, G. (2003) Guidelines for Promoting and Facilitating Change, LTSN Generic Centre. Available at:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/…/id296_Promoting_and_facilitating_change.pdf [Accessed: 27 January 2014].
Pfeffer, J. and Sutton, R. (2000) The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publications.
Revans, R. (1983) Action Learning: Its Origins and Nature, in Pedler, M. (ed.) Action Learning in Practice. Gower,
Aldershot, pp 5-13.
Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Salmon, G. (2005) Flying not flapping: a strategic framework for e-learning and pedagogical innovation in higher
education institutions. ALT-J, 13 (3), 201-218.
Stacey, R. (1996) Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics. 2nd Ed, London, Pitman.
Thurley, K. and Wirdenius, H. (1973) Supervision: A Reappraisal,London, Heinemann.
Weick, K. E. and Quinn, R. E. (1999) Organisational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50
p361-86.

Topic 1 xtra note

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Topic 1 xtra note (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Topic 1 xtra note