Upload
amberlynn-craig
View
218
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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