Feature: Higher ed adapts slowly to global challenges

Study reveals the characteristics and nature of academics and universities that could hinder or promote the implementation of KM.

A two-year study of practices and perceptions of knowledge management (KM) in higher educational institutions (HEIs) in the UK has unveiled seven aspects of the characteristics and nature of academics and universities that could hinder or promote the implementation of KM.
The results provide insights that can help KM advocates make a stronger case for increased attention to KM.
KM has increased in popularity and credibility as a management tool within industry – and as a research discipline within the higher education sector – over the past decade. Yet KM has also been considered a fad by some observers and researchers and academics have debated its ‘faddishness’.
Before setting out on this study, the researchers adopted the view that KM is certainly not a fad and agreed with Stankosky’s view that the knowledge-economy is here to stay (Stankosky, 2005). This article is not intended to explore that debate; rather, it aims to present the views formed by two researchers and the findings of research conducted at seven higher education institutions in the UK.
The case study aimed to gain a better understanding of current practices and perceptions of knowledge management within HEIs. And, we attempted to understand better the challenges and factors that hinder or promote greater acceptance of KM.

Adjusting to global change
Higher education institutions today and in the near future will experience different and intensified external pressures influenced by globalisation. The past few decades have witnessed the pressure on HEIs to respond to global change. If globalisation has influenced the ease of movement of goods, capital, labour and ideas, what do HEIs need to do to stay competitive, to ensure the quality of their products and to ensure that a good academic experience is achieved by their students?
Globalisation and marketisation have forced institutions of higher education to think about the way in which they teach, conduct research and manage the institution and its various stakeholders.
We continue to ask the questions. Are HEIs within the UK able to respond to these changes in a timely and effective manner? Are they simply going about their business in 2009 as they have done before? Are they beginning to appreciate the need to embrace the philosophy of efficiency and effectiveness and ways in which to incorporate management methods and models from the business world to ensure an ability to respond to change effectively and efficiently?
The adoption of business methods and models are not merely accepted and implemented within HEIs by virtue of the nature and mission of HEIs, and therefore these questions raise interesting discussions of the current perceptions and practices within HEIs today.
Institutions of higher education within the UK are diverse in terms of background, history, culture, resources and mission. A dichotomy of priorities exists within a university; some aim to provide quality teaching and research activity, and others to ensure effective and efficient management and administration of the institution within an increasingly competitive market.
The values of scholarship remain a very important aspect of HEIs’ mission; however, the external environment within which HEIs operate is rapidly changing, forcing HEIs to reflect on how they do ‘business’ given the external pressures they face.

Selecting the cases
The research aimed to uncover themes, concepts and theory from the interviews and subsequently the data, rather than using the interviews to verify or test a preconceived hypothesis. Seven HEIs within the UK were included in the case, which involved one-to-one and one-to-many interviews with very senior members of staff. The institutions were selected to reflect a good cross section of different types of universities within the UK.
KM implementation within higher education is a relatively under-researched area. Given that the KM field of research and application have very different meanings to different people, understanding these and how HEIs compare was essential as a first phase of the research and hence a survey was done of all the HEIs within the UK. This survey yielded a rich set of data that provided a frame for selection of the cases.
Two models and perspectives on KM provided the lens through which to investigate KM at HEIs in the UK:

Stankovsky’s model on KM – The Architecture of Enterprise Engineering was used to frame the interview questions to better understand perceptions and practices within the four pillars of KM in HEIs, i.e.,
- Leadership – guide the KM values;
- The organisation - support the leadership values through good processes, and so on;
- Technology – enable the processes;
- A culture of learning – enhance and promote collaboration and the sharing of knowledge; “attributes necessary for the learning organisation”.
Davenport and Prusak have a very pragmatic approach to KM and hence their perspective on what KM was used.

Findings
Data from the cases provided valuable insights into the perceptions and practices of KM. For the purposes of this article, two aspects from the interviews will be discussed – characteristics of academic staff and the context and characteristics of universities.
One of the questions asked: “Why is KM not accepted more broadly in higher education?” Some of the themes and points coming out:

Academics are considered experts in their field which raises issues of academic arrogance and academic freedom;
Academic staff do not want to be managed in the hard-core business sense;
Their natural unit of working is one – themselves;
Academics are open to the idea of sharing; however, issues of timing in relation to innovation and research were raised. Also these sharing opportunities need to be created, and do not necessarily occur naturally within the context of higher education;
Academics generally tend to provide very long service to a university and hence, once they leave, this has a detrimental impact on the school, faculty and institution. If the academic is a renowned expert, the ability to attract students and funding is affected;
Academics affiliate and align themselves within their research unit first and then their, department, school, faculty and the university. This has an impact on an institutions ability to implement institutional-wide change, unless concerted effort demonstrates benefits at the academic and individual level;
Academics are normally high achievers, with a record of personal success, at school and at university, and are sometimes resistant to the views of others unless those views are well articulated.

Cultural differences
Within HEIs there is the perception of an academic and administrative divide. A perception from an administrator is that the academic community has a much more sharing culture. On the administrative side the issue is getting the information only that you ask for; and, if you do not ask the correct questions, you possibly will not get the information you seek.
This was felt to be the case with certain units, although practices within other units explicitly embrace and incorporate the sharing of knowledge and best practices to a degree.
The universities within the cases were found to be traditionally collegiate, consensus- type organisations. Two cases highlighted this as a very strong culture within their university. Two universities were considered to be very different from other universities, which typically had highly politicised environments. Universities are complex organisations and hence organisational change and the decision-making process is a very long one. Hence, the rate of change within this context is slow.

Management, structure and style
Two different forms of management structure were found: central and decentralised models. Notwithstanding the different management structures, universities too have their own style, mission and ethos.
One of the Russell group universities (the group of 20 leading research-led universities in the UK) has a very clear, explicit and overt mission of excellence, and although it is a traditional, well-established, ‘old’ UK university, it embraces the 21st century management practices of KM. However, a new appointment had recently been made, and some redefining of the position has occurred.
At the time of the case study, a second university had, two months prior to the case study, redefined the position of director to that of senior executive, also with a very clear mandate and responsibility for KM.
Both of these universities mentioned have a devolved structure, empowering heads (deans) of faculties or colleges with devolved budgets and power. One indicated that the devolved structure potentially weakens the ‘centre’ or the senior executive’s position and the ability to drive change across the institution. Although the leadership of the university values KM, and the university is one of the leading institutions within this case to embrace KM, it does have to deal with implementation difficulties due to the nature of a devolved organisation.
A third university, considered as a newer, pre-1992 university and also known for its national and international excellence in research and teaching, has marked its strategy with a wish to be enterprising and outward-looking and seeks to covertly match academic excellence with relevance. Although, entrepreneurial in style and mission, the institution does not overtly practice KM, but considers KM-like activity to be part of what senior individuals within the institution already do. Its structure, however, favours a more central model and hence the senior members of staff do not have the same difficulties as the decentralised universities do.

Some challenges
The HEIs within the sample are very representative of the different types of universities in the UK, and certainly they all may be universities but historically, locationally and financially, their positions are very different. They certainly did not all start from the same position and were not in the same position at the time of interviewing.
Given the differences in history, culture and mission, the interviews identified commonalities in the challenges experienced over the years existed; however, there were major differences as well.
One of the commonalities amongst all the universities is change. Universities within the UK all underwent change over the past decade; however this change was considered to be especially strong in the universities classified as post-1992 (former Polytechnics) compared with the other well-established, traditional pre-1992 universities which enjoyed research prestige, and were not pressured to change their processes and systems at the time.
However, these well-established universities, having missed the extreme pressure of change in 1992 and beyond, have now begun to rethink the way they ‘do business’, given the impact of globalisation and marketisation and their ambition to continue to maintain their prestige.
It was noted that the challenges experienced by major change in the universities classified as ‘Post-1992: Former Polytechnics’ have impacted on their ability to embrace additional major change not imposed by government or the funding councils. These institutions contended that a period of stability was required, where change and improvement was minimal.
Their stance was one that 21st century management tools either need to be imposed by government or the funding councils or have to be tested and tried by the elite well-established research intensive universities within the UK before it will be considered. The perception was that they do not have the luxury of resources to invest in any activities not considered core or critical to the university’s mission.

Conclusions
Universities in general, and UK HEIs in particular, do have a significant level of KM activities. All of these are not necessarily termed KM, but there is a substantial amount of activity with the similar aims and objectives of KM. It is evident from the cases that two out of the seven HEIs were engaging in KM in a systemic and institutional-wide way, and a further two had champions engaging in KM overtly within their faculty. These four institutions were therefore actively engaged in prioritising 21st century management tools.
Higher education institutions within the United Kingdom have undergone major change over the past decade that has impacted on their ability to respond to external forces not imposed by the government or funding councils. Some of these are linked to the influences of globalisation and market forces and impact directly on institutions’ ability to maintain their prestige and rank.
Well-established, prestigious universities within the UK appear to be more capable of responding to these forces and have recently begun to prioritise 21st century management tools like KM, lean management, balance score card and process improvement.
The case study has enabled research to be conducted on a spread of universities within the UK, and has presented very interesting and current findings as to the context of HEI’s and its position on KM as a management tool. The full paper may be downloaded at http://www.ejkm.com/volume-6/v6-2/v6-i2-art2.htm.

Desireé Cranfield is completing her PhD at the Centre for Higher Education, Management and Policy at Southampton. Contact desiree.cranfield@btinternet.com | John Taylor is professor, Centre for Higher Education, Management and Policy. Contact jtaylor@soton.ac.uk