Looking for a model of contemporary university Krzysztof Leja Faculty of Management and Economics...

Looking for a modelof contemporary university

Krzysztof LejaFaculty of Management and EconomicsGdansk University of Technology

International ConferenceDRIVERS FROM HIGHER TO QUALITY EDUCATION, Warsaw, June 18-19,

2010

Agenda

1. Introduction2. Short diagnosis of Polish HEIs3. Key drivers to change

▫ flexibility▫ coopetition▫ N=1, R=G (Prahalad†, Krishnan)▫ 1st = 2nd = 3rd mission

4. Conclusions

INTRODUCTION

Data1990-1991 2000–2001 2008–2009

HEIs - total - private

112 (.)

310 195

456 325

Students (ISCED 5A) 404 000 (.)

1 585 000472 000

1 928 000 659 000

Alumnies (ISCED 5A) 56 000(.)

304 00080 000

410 000 154 000

PhD students (ISCED 6) 2 700 25 6002 103

32 5002 314

Post - diploma students 32 800 146 75025 624

168 40050 224

International students (.)(.)

6 563897

15 8624 632

Academic staff 59 334(.)

70 8659 343

81 784 16 847

Educational rate ( %) 12,9 40,7 52,7Public funding (% GDP) 0,82 0,72 0,88

Non-public funding (% total funds) (.) 33 28Tuition fee (% students) (.) 63 58

Revenue in %’1995-2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

Universities Technical universities

Agricultural academies

Academies of

economics

Teacher education

schools

Medical academies

Physical academies

Fine arts academies

E'1995 E'2000 E'2008 R&D'1995 R&D'2000 R&D'2008

80/20formula is correct

Demography for Poland - age19-24

Source: http://www.stat.gov.pl/gus/45_5744_PLK_HTML.htm, 12.02.2009 r.

2007 2008 2009

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

=100

96 93 90 75 62 57 63 64

3,7 mln

3,6 3,5 3,4 2,8 2,3 2,1 2,4 2,4

DIAGNOSIS

Diagnosis 1

• Hierarchy, disciplinary, collegialism, autonomy but not accountability (?), rector is president, prime ministry and marshall of parliament, but the power is weak or strong?

• HEIs are not ivory towers but not entrepreneurial or knowledge-based organizations yet?

• Lack of diversity of university mission & strategy

• Rigid units: faculties/institutes/chairs (good practice - Warsaw School of Economics)

Diagnosis 2

•The best students doesn’t want to share their knowledge.

•Statistical data of students and alumnies are available only. Data on staff and finances are unavailable – on the institutional level.

•LLL is limited to post-diploma courses

Diagnosis 3 - equalizer by de Boer

Traditional university Entrepreneurial university

J. Fried, University interfaces, www.donau-uni.ac.at, 4.03.2007

state regulations – SR; academic self governance - AGstakeholder quidance – SG; managerial governance – MG

competition - C

Diagnosis 4- equalizer(2)Poland’ 1990 & 2010

1990 2010

state regulations – SR; academic self governance - AGstakeholder quidance – SG; managerial governance – MG

competition - C

Diagnosis 5•Morphostasis = keeping form and shape [of

university] the same (or almost the same)

•Why is morphogenesis NOT attractive for university? What about double loop learning?

•What did we do in Polish HE? What are we doing ? What shall we do ?

•SIMPLE ANSWER IS: 3 x A LOT

Diagnosis 6 - transformation

1990-2007 From elite to massive higher education

(quantity≠quality),

but if we understand quality as ‘fitness for purpose’ – the goal is done

2008-2010National Qualification Frameworks – morphogenesis

2010-Changing HE system is not very easy so

Waiting for the results but it needs time and money

KEY DRIVERS OF CHANGE

From traditional organization to…

Rector Senate

Central administration and support staff

Facu

lty

IV

Facu

lty

III

Facu

lty

II

Facu

lty

I

Team A

Team B

Team C

Source: Wissema J., Technostarters, What and how?, p. 52

Organization axis

Coordination axis

…University of 3rd generationprof.J. Wissema

Board of trustees

Board

Support staff for the bord

Team

D

Team

C

Team

B

Team

A

x

y

University common support staff

Coordination axis

Organization axis

Source: Wissema J., Technostarters, What and how?, p. 52

Key drivers of changecoopetition

•University’s integration – almost all of HEIs aspire to the Ivy League ( The future of Europen universities- renaissance or decay? – report by Lambert & Butler 2006)

•University Networks, spin-offs, etc.

•Domestic and international mobility

Key drivers of changeN=1, R=G

•Driving co-creted value through global networks – idea of Prahalad† & Krishnan 2008

•Domestic mobility – problem in Poland & internationalization (only 0,8% of students in Poland are foreigners )

•From 80/20 to 50/50 (Edu/R+D; public/non-public funds)

Key drivers of change3rd mission

Socially university responsibility+

Public responsibility for university=

Co-creation of the value addedboth by university & stakeholders

Conclusions

University model needs reflection

▫ Cultures and organizations (Hofstede) – status quo, not to discuss (point A)

▫ Images of organization (Morgan) – do we know where we want to go? (point B)

▫ Organization first informatization next – if we know A and B, we should concentrate on the way

Conclusion•HEIs needs strategy - 2 strategies in

Poland but…I am afraid politicians will choose the third way

•University model (transformation) needs theoretic background and anticipation FLEXIBILITY and OPENESS

•To solve the problems in HE I suggest playing chess or maths…

Thank you for attention