Institutional Buy-In

1
Institutional Buy-In
Richard Brotherton GIMIS Janthia Duncan TISR Rob
Stafford SMILE
2
Institutional Buy-In

• Unless commitment is made, there are only
  promises and hopes but no plans.
• Peter F. Drucker

3
What is Institutional Buy-In?

• This normally means that an initiative is
  embedded in an organisations processes resulting
  in a commitment of resources e.g. money,
  acceptance of a reduced service, willingness to
  give up time to attend consultations.

4
Why an MLE development must have institutional
Buy-In

• More than lip service
• Provide the development with the teeth
• Writtle (3000 FTE)
• Managed by a fairly small senior core
• Developers empowered to drive the re-evaluation
  of processes
• Sunderland (12000 FTE)
• Development carried out under the auspices of a
  Project Team
• It is led by a senior academic and a senior
  administrator, under the direct line management
  of a PVC
• Ravensbourne (1000 FTE)
• highly focused IT team
• People have difficulty getting from the desire
  for improved resources to proper involvement and
  buy-in

5

Who should be Buying-In?

• Institution buy-in should be evidenced at
  several levels
• Senior Management Team
• Faculty Management
• Departmental Management
• Management at each level should be persuaded of
  the merits of the MLE
• Writtle College
• GIMIS has a steering group that comprises members
  from all levels, ensuring that the process of
  decision-making is open and effective.
• Sunderland
• Projects philosophy is to be as inclusive as
  possible, in order to leverage as much of the
  Universitys significant expertise as possible to
  ensure that sound and valid choices were made.
• Ravensbourne
• TISR has a steering group that has changed during
  the life of the project, to include a wide range
  of parties, including administration staff,
  Directors of Studies (DoS), Students and
  Consortium members.

6
How should Buy-In be evidenced?

• In the same way that management should see the
  prospect for tangible benefits, there should be
  some tangible evidence of their commitment to the
  development of an MLE.
• Writtle College
• The GIMIS project is driven through a series of
  documents, agreed and signed by Stakeholders,
  which serves to formalise the scope of the
  project and provide confidence in the direction
  of the project.
• Sunderland
• The SMILE project adopted the stance that the
  buy in analysis focus on who engaged with the
  initiative, and where they are positioned in the
  institution. Areas or personnel under represented
  were then targeted as appropriate.
• Ravensbourne
• The TISR project buy-in has been evidenced
  through the commitment of individuals and
  departments to consultations and meetings
  through the deployment of resource to support the
  project through the subordination of other
  projects and through adjustments to schedules.

7
What teeth should Buy-In provide?

• To be effective, an MLE team needs to be able to
  affect an holistic development that encompasses
  all parts of the institution, providing the
  greatest overall benefit to the entire
  institution.
• Writtle College
• The GIMIS team have been given a remit that
  allows reviews in all areas of the college. The
  reviews are carried out by the appropriate
  departmental staff in discussion with the
  development team, with a view to co-operative
  improvement.
• Sunderland
• The SMILE team enabled personnel at key locations
  within the institution to quantify the real
  benefits and opportunities of involvement and
  engagement with the project, through a series of
  business process reviews.
• Ravensbourne
• The TISR team recognises that it would be helpful
  if there were more pressure on course teams to
  engage fully with the kind of planning and
  organisation needed when using information
  systems. Nevertheless, the new DoS operational
  management group shows signs of gradually moving
  in this direction.

8
What happens without Evidenced Buy-In?

• Without visible support
• Success will potentially prove illusive.
• There is no true commitment or incentive to drive
  the project
• It would be possible for a single uncooperative
  department to seriously limit the effectiveness
  of an MLE.
• However a tenacious, focused team that is
  prepared to make sympathetic interpretations of
  systemic muddle or cultural idiosyncrasy can
  still entertain hope of success!

9
Building ManagedLearning Environmentsin Higher
EducationInstitutional Strategy