JISC

Download this document

Introduction

The aim of our research is to understand better the perceptions and attitudes of senior managers towards JISC and its services, and gather information on wider issues of concern.

The research took place during between November 2009 and January 2010, and provides evidence from strategic decision makers in universities and colleges in both the higher and further education sectors of the UK; attempting to gain an ‘institutional’ view rather than necessarily users’ views.

The information presented draws on two elements of research; our annual quantitative survey of head and senior managers within libraries, information technology services and learning and teaching functions, and a bespoke phase of qualitative research comprising in depth interviews with 37 of these senior managers across 35 institutions. Both pieces of research involved respondents from higher and further education institutions spanning the UK.

The survey response within each audience type is representative of the profile of HE/FE institutions within the UK as a whole, according to country and JISC Banding. Although the face to face interviews were qualitative in nature, efforts were made to sample a randomly selected range of institutions by size and country.

1 Both audience counts include respondents from institutions with converged IT/library services (15 in the survey, 5 in the interviews)

2 Based on 168 HEIs and 437 FECs with primary JANET connection.

3 Audiences not treated separately due to sample sizes.

In charts and tables throughout this document the following abbreviated forms are used for audience groupings:

• ‘HE Lib / LRC’ is used to indicate respondents from libraries and learning resource centres within higher education and includes those from converged library and ICT services
• ‘HE ICT’ indicates respondents from ICT and network services and includes converged library and ICT respondents
• ‘HE L&T’ indicates respondent from HE with responsibility for learning and teaching
• ‘FE ALL’ is used to indicate all further education respondents and includes respondents from FE libraries and LRCs, ICT and network as well as those with responsibility for learning and teaching

Sample sizes are shown throughout the report are based on all respondents answering unless stated otherwise for example when used with charts in the following format eg 'HE Lib 110/87' indicating 110 respondents from 87 separate institutions. Caution should be exercised with interpreting data based on fewer than 50 respondents, and is not shown when fewer than 30.

In particular the sample size of Learning and Teaching respondents in HE is low and consequently their views have been taken into account when considering Higher Education as a whole but not necessarily reported on within the text or graphics. However their verbatim comments and perceptions have been used to support the general narrative. Again due to sample sizes, we decided to group the FE audiences together rather than present them individually.

JISC would like to thank all those who took part in the survey and interviews; your views are essential to help us better meet the needs of the communities we support.

Overview of the research

The following is a list of key messages that you have given JISC through the survey and interviews:

Perceptions of JISC

Across all our senior audiences and in both HE and FE sectors, JISC is well-regarded. It is particularly associated with a relatively small number of ‘big’ services / projects / activities; JANET and JISC Collections especially. There is a very clear view that these services must be protected at all cost and the sector needs to see that these services remain key priorities for JISC.

Overall, the senior individuals we interviewed were largely in agreement that:

• JISC must ‘stick to its strengths’ and focus on the ‘big services’ (which tend to be seen by them as JANET and Collections / digital content)

...and/or…

• Attempt to or continue to (depending on a respondents’ perception of JISC’s current role) – occupy the position of sector technology ‘co-ordinator’ – an organisation which is able to absorb, create and share information, advice, current best practice (etc.) across the sector

Perceptions of JISC Services

Knowledge of the JISC portfolio of services as a whole is not consistent; awareness tends to lie with the ‘big names’ such as JISC Collections and JANET. This challenges our assumption that senior audiences within institutions act as ‘gatekeepers’ or ‘custodians’ of knowledge about the full range of JISC Services.

The research suggests that specific gaps in JISC’s service do not exist – or if they do they are extremely difficult to identify for audiences at this level. People were far more interested in discussing the relevance of what JISC does in a more general and strategic sense, than they were in trying to spot specific failings or gaps in individual service provision.

There is a clear message for JISC to further develop relationships with the senior decision-makers in these audiences: to promote an understanding and awareness of the full ‘JISC portfolio’; and to understand which specific services and offerings might be of interest and relevance to the individual organisation.

Audience needs, interests and concerns

Clearly at the forefront of many senior managers’ minds are current economic pressures, and in particular developing effective strategies to deal with cost-cutting whilst at the same time maintaining – and ideally improving – standards, especially for students.

In this year’s survey we asked respondents if JISC had to prioritise or focus its efforts in three main areas, where should it be. Although the order differed, all audiences placed the need to ‘Identify technologies which deliver cost effective solutions’ within their top three priorities for JISC. Another area of high in priority was responding to changing student expectations.

When we asked senior managers if their institution is well informed about how to improve organisational and administrative structures to better respond to new learning, teaching and assessment challenges and/or to meet the challenges of effectiveness and efficiency, a fifth felt fairly uninformed. Likewise, regarding the technical challenges of meeting the needs of students and lecturers using new technologies – up to a quarter claim their institution is either not very or not all informed. Given the general areas of concern raised by respondents, there is clearly a need for some for more information to help tackle these issues.

In addition, our audiences would like to see JISC…

• Continue to monitor and co-ordinate the development of technologies and ensure that institutions are aware of this role
• Take a stronger hand in recommending and positioning (ie going beyond merely providing information and the means for the sector to share)
• Show a strong hand in promoting and facilitating harmonisation: institutions cannot afford to make mistakes in decisions about which technologies to adopt and are eager to ensure that their systems, platforms, software (etc.) is compatible with others in the sector (and in other sectors)
• Help institutions understand how they can make their budgets stretch further by adopting value-for-money solutions
• Continue to represent the sector in the important matter of liaising and negotiating with publishers in all areas of e-resources

Business and Community Engagement

The survey shows a high level of interest and involvement across all audience types with BCE activities. From previous surveys it is clear that the development and operation of these activities has placed pressures on IT structures, policies and access & licensing arrangements; areas JISC is keen to assist with.

Senior managers want general information from JISC about BCE particularly sharing best practice, and also specific information about licensing issues and facilitating access to shared systems and content. It was suggested by some that JISC provide more information about what services are available in the wider business market and from HE ICT staff that extending technical models to a wider audience would support their role.

Cloud computing

Our surveys show that depth of knowledge of cloud computing still varies and is fairly low even for ICT staff who clearly have a pivotal role in the policy and implementation of such activities within institutions. Evidence suggests that such policies may have been created by reaction rather than design with more respondents indicating that policies and guidance in their institution exists surrounding the informal use of cloud computing rather than its formal use.

Senior managers in ICT placed cloud computing/outsourcing as second on the list of JISC’s priorities, and our interviews confirm that many are eager to hear more from experts and innovators in this area. Last year’s survey highlighted security, legal issues and corporate accountability as perceived barriers to implementing outsourcing. This year there continues to be a demand for further information about cloud computing and outsourcing on most issues (especially integration with other systems and security).

Green ICT

It is clear that the vast majority recognise the importance of Green ICT initiatives to an institution and nearly all think that adopting Green ICT has to be an institutional wide approach rather than a matter for personal choice or behaviour. Many believe that ‘Green ICT’ should be part of a broader sustainability policy and strategy rather than being treated in isolation. The improvements that greening ICT can bring to an institution are more often considered to be related to reducing costs rather than improving the effectiveness of the institution.

Knowledge about Green ICT initiatives within institutions or across the sector seems to lie much more with those who procure and deploy ICT, rather than end-users. This is interesting given the perception that such activities should be part of an institutional wide approach to sustainability rather than the remit of a few.

Web 2.0

Two key areas of interest emerge from our research: (a) ensuring that staff have both the requisite skills and the appropriate mindsets to fully exploit technology-enhanced learning and teaching opportunities, and (b) monitoring the way in which Web 2.0 technologies are being adopted by staff and students and developing systematic ways of exploiting these technologies and constructing proper frameworks in which they can sit.

Respondents tended to be concerned not so much with the technical aspects of using Web 2.0 technologies as part of the learning and teaching strategy but more with understanding and sharing information and experiences with others about the effectiveness of a particular approach and on the broader impacts that the adoption of a particular technology or approach might bring about. Advice, support, guidance alongside case studies, demonstrations and examples in sharing best practice were considered the main methods of support JISC could provide.

Communication and managing relationships

The principal message for JISC at a strategic communications level is we need to communicate more but in a more structured way and this should happen both in relation to the ‘bigger picture’ (ie presenting key audiences with an overall perspective on JISC, its remit and its areas of activity) and also in relation to specific services and activities which have particular relevance to individual audiences and/ or institutions. Our research tells us we should be addressing a number of areas:

• Greater clarity of offering; the interviews also told us that many have gaps and possibly misconceptions in relation to their knowledge and understanding of JISC
• Become more effective at enabling institutions to develop a better appreciation of what it has to offer and how its services and activities can bring about benefits relevant to a wide range of functions across the typical university or college
• Limiting contact to nominated ‘gate-keepers’ in each institution – leaving them to distribute information according to appropriateness and need
• Communications must acknowledge the different interests and responsibilities of each audience and therefore more role-specific / interest specific communications are needed

Most suggested that JISC would be well-advised to further exploit the platforms offered by the various membership organisations and representative bodies with which members of each audience are attached. Increased JISC presence at professional conferences would be beneficial;

Greater support and encouragement to ensure that all institutions feel they can bid for JISC funding – and will be fully supported in putting a bid together – and ensuring that everyone sees the bidding process is fair and open.

Much discussion also developed around the issue of how JISC can best understand and relate to each institution. Although there are many difficulties with such an approach, it was suggested on many occasions that an ‘account manager’ type model might be considered. The important point is that JISC should seek to find ways to develop stronger and more systematically-managed relationships with all institutions across both HE and FE: in some cases, such relationships exist (eg through the Regional Support Centres) but in many cases it was felt that more needs to be done.

Download the PDF to read the full report.