Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Universities in transition: Managing knowledge and developing people through the use of intellectual capital
(revised)
Cristina Devecchi School of Education
17th November5-6pm, S036
TRANSFORMING HE: Building the university of the future
Seminar Series
Originally presented at the ECER 2015 conference in collaboration with Nick Petford
#transformingHE
A provocation: Intellectual Capital is not about ‘us’; it’s about managers
The paper is a literature review about 'intellectual capital' and how to
mobilise it in universities. … There clearly is a literature to which this paper
relates and which it grapples with, but I did not recognise the concerns -
as least as an academic. It might well be of use and interest to managers.
(thanks to the anonymous reviewer for this thought provoking comment)
Why should Intellectual Capital be of interest only to managers?
“ When employees walk out the door, they take valuable organizational knowledge with them ” (Lesser and Prusak 2001 , 1)
1. WHAT IS THE KNOWLEDGE THEY TAKE WITH THEM?2. WHY DOES IT MATTER?3. HOW CAN WE USE IT AND WHAT FOR?
1. In a society which is, and will be even more in future depending on the production, utilisation, dissemination and ‘commercialisation’ of knowledge, traditional tangible assets are necessary (although less and less so), but not sufficient any longer to provide the competitive advantage we need to survive and flourish.
2. Both incremental and disruptive innovation (Christensen, 2013) depend on the efficient, effective and fair management of intangible knowledge resources.
3. Therefore, it is in our personal, professional and organisational interest to make the best use possible of the intangible resources at our disposal, that is, of our individual and institutional intellectual capital.
A thesis statement
Overview
1. WHY IC MATTERS TO HE
2. WHAT IS IC?
3. IC @ THE UNIVERSITY OF
NORTHAMPTON
Slide Subject
WHY DOES ‘IC’ MATTER TO UNIVERSITIES?
The context of HE: ,,, in transformation
HE in transition: challenges & solutions‘In research centres and universities, the key issue at stake is the effective management of intangible assets and IC, which constitutes the largest proportion of universities’ assets (Secundo et al. , 2010; Paloma Sánchez et al. , 2009).
In such organisations, “ the value of IC [… ] should be measured in terms of its direct or indirect social value (Castellanos and Rodriguez, 2004, pp 479-480)’ (Secundo et al, 2015: 420).
HE in transition: From core mission to social mission
Double Helix [teaching and research]
Triple Helix [academia, business and government]
Quadruple Helix and Normative business model [academia, business, government and social impact]
Intellectual mission
Socialmission
Economicmission
Slide from Devecchi & Davis-Sinclair (2015)
A new HE model: from complicated administration to complex systems management
EntrepreneurialImaginative, creative, pro-active and risk aware
Complicated Structure
Hybrid structuration
Complex systems
BureaucraticReproductive, inflexible, Reactive, risk-avoider
Stable
Chaotic
Linear production mode, exploitation and administration of known resources
Service delivery mode, exploitation of human wants and needs through commodification of products
Knowledge economy mode, exploitation of IC to co-create value
IC matters to us all because …‘Europe must strengthen the three poles of its knowledge triangle: education, research and innovation. Universities are essential in all three. Investing more and better in the modernisation and quality of universities is a direct investment in the future of Europe and Europeans’ (European Commission, 2005; p.2 in Leitner et al, 2014, p. 1)
‘Yet, the potential of European higher education institutions to fulfil their role in society and contribute to Europe’s prosperity remains underexploited. (…)’. (European Commission , 2011:2)
‘In order to maximise the contribution of Europe’s higher education systems to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, reforms are needed in key areas: to increase the quantity of higher education graduates at all levels; to enhance the quality and relevance of human capital development in higher education; to create effective governance and funding mechanisms in support of excellence; and to strengthen the knowledge triangle between education, research and business’. (European Commission , 2011:3)
And yet when it comes to IC …
• ‘In practical terms, IC strategic management focuses on the ways to visualise and use individual and organisational resources and capacities in a holistic manner, with a focus on intangible assets, and how to develop in a sustainable manner such resources and activities’ (Secundo, et al, 2014)
• However, ‘management of universities has become, at the same time, the main solution and barrier to tackling the emerging challenges’ (Perez et al, 2014:150).
Slide Subject
WHAT IS INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL?
Researching IC: Mining and trawlingResearch questions:1. What is intellectual capital?2. What are the key issues discussed in the literature?3. How can it be applied in universities?
Components of intellectual capital
3 waves of IC research & practice implications
Wave 1 – knowledge capture
• Making explicit the knowledge held in the organisation
• Creating environments for the distribution of knowledge (i.e. open plan offices)
Wave 2 – towards management
•Knowledge as the ability to make a difference to users
•Translation of KR to numbers to make it manageable•Performance targets
Wave 3 – towards strategization
• KR part of decision-making
• Enabling innovation
• KRM dynamic and interactive
IC REPORTING AND ACCOUNTINGMetrics aligning to financial accounting to make the intangible tangible and measurable
TOWARDS IC MANAGEMENTNew Public Management, performance target setting as a means to increase productivity and lower costs
IC EMBEDDED IN THE STRATEGYNormative Business model (Randles, 2015), disruptive innovation (Christensen, 2011), Civic University (Goddard, 2009)
Slide Subject
IC & THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHAMPTON: A BEGINNING
The University of tomorrow?
https://www.ashoka.org/story/5-trends-guiding-future-changemaker-universities
If …
Then how?
Bringing down inter-generational barrier and distinctions between play, learn and work
‘Proliferation of discrete educational opportunities’
Thinking innovatively about solutions even before a problem occurs
Harnessing the power of learners across the world while providing a personalised experience Quality and scalability of
learning experience
Devecchi (2015)
Proposition for change: 3 premises
1. Change is a necessity - The first premise is the acknowledgement that dealing with change is not an option but a necessity, and that this change can be managed only if universities are able, willing and enabled to take risks. Yet, this does not mean to take risks for risks’ sake.
2. Socially responsible risk-taking - Rather, and this is the second premise, universities needs to revisit their goals and missions so as to reformulate their involvement in society. For this reason, the second premise qualifies the risks to be taken as ‘socially responsible’ ones and locates the future role of universities as instigators and facilitators of community development. Ultimately, this new role will see universities as working in, for and with a range of different, interconnected, local, national and global communities.
3. Imagining the impossible - Developing through change, which is the result of socially responsible risk taking to the benefit of communities, will force universities to re-examine their ability to bridge the gap between academic and every day knowledge. The third premise will therefore, in Bernstein’s words, leave the safety of what is known to be achievable to ‘imagine the impossible’ and make it happen.
Imagine the impossible and make it happen
Devecchi (2015)
Changing role of universities
KNOW- WHATTraditional expert knowledge
KNOW-HOWEntrepreneurial application of knowledge
Devecchi (2015)
Changing spaces of operation: old and new together
San Lorenzo in Miranda, RomeThe re-use of old structure for a new purpose. An example of incremental innovation? The old and the new seem to fit together and support each other. Yet, the inside of the church of san Lorenzo replicates a series of ‘closed’ spaces and Christian and societal hierarchies. The church has the altar at the top of the central nave, the lateral aisles, and possibly a space just for women.
Symbolically, also, the new is enclosed, almost protected, by the old. Clearly a transition stage in architectural terms, or, most probably, ancient Romans’ eye for cost-efficiency!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Rome-Forum_romain-Temple_d'Antonin_et_Faustine.jpg
Changing spaces of operation: an open space for multiple purposes
Pantheon, RomeCompleted under the reign of the emperor Hadrian in 126, the Pantheon (all gods) was consecrated as the Christian church to Saint Mary and the Martyrs in 609. Since the Renaissance it has become the resting place for many famous Italian painters, poets and two kings.
Unlike San Lorenzo, the Pantheon was built as a pagan temple. Of the pagan and Roman culture of the forum, it retains a circular internal open space which can be used for multiple purposes.
http://www.abcroma.com/Pantheon5.jpg
The open and mobile space of the Pantheon
The interior of the Pantheon is round and open with niches all around the central space. The internal space can be organised and structured differently.
The central features of the Pantheon are the ‘cupola’ dome and the ‘oculus’ (the eye). The former is built by using different types of material progressively less heavy as it approaches the apex. The oculus is the only source of light which moves around throughout the day, shining light across the entire internal space.
©Devecchi ©Devecchi
• Space has a physical characteristic, but it is the purpose it is put to that matters
• Space can be constrained by the physical structure in which it is trapped, but …
• It can also be constrained by the mental structures which delimit and limit how we use the knowledge-space.
So what is our space and what IC has to do with it?
The open space of curriculum change
Changing how we learn
Changing what we learn
Changing why we learn
DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION• New strategies • New teaching approaches• New technologies• New places where to learn
CURRICULAR TRANSFORMATION• Different contents• Different learning outcomes• Different curricular structure
ETHICAL TRANSFORMATION• Redefining the scope and
purposes of learning• Learning for personal good• Learning for social good• Learning as a common good
Devecchi (2015)
Phase 3: IC embedded in the University Strategy
CORE VALUES
IC across the University: teaching and research and beyond
Human capital
Structural capital
Relational capital
INWARD FACING(Student employability and social engagement)University Centre for Employability and Engagement (UCEE)
OUTWARD FACING (Business, social enterprise)• Growth Hub• University of
Northampton Innovation Centre
• Institute for Social Innovation and Impact
STAFF FACING (Teaching innovation & Digital transformation)• Institute for Learning
and Teaching• Human resources
staff development
STUDENT FACING (Student support and student experience)• Student support
services (Library, etc.)• Teaching
INWARD FACINGHR Staff Development
OUTWARD FACINGIndividual schools/Centres/Institutes/individuals and external partnerships
Final considerations • Value creation and response to change - IC is about how human
resources create wealth by using their knowledge assets (skills, competences, values) to create a structured system which can deal with and respond quickly to complex external and internal demands (stakeholders, students, etc.)
• Innovative leadership and management - As it is closely related to resources, IC is also central to how such resources are acquired and deployed within an overall strategic plan. This means that IC is a driver of organisational performance and a way to monitor and support it
• Limitations of present reporting models - IC reporting models are important since the indicators used to report IC determine the targets, outputs, and overall operational activities especially those directly linked with the deployment and development of the workforce, but they are still limited
Research on IC and Universities: a knowledge gap
• Despite interest at the European Union level, IC is still an under-researched topic although gaining more interest
• IC is still perceived only as a management tool rather than a value creation tool and therefore perceived by staff as a neoliberal performance tool
• Isolated pools of interest and expertise and knowledge located and disseminated mainly within accountancy and human resource management fields
• Few examples of empirical and practical research; focus mainly on measurement, report and accountability; Research & Development; and natural sciences
• Bontis, N. (1998) Intellectual capital: an exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decisions, 36, 2, 63-76
• Bontis, N. et al, (2002) Intellectual capital ROI: a causal map of human capital antecedents and consequents. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3, 3, 223-247
• Christensen, C. (2013)• Davenport , T. , and L. Prusak . 1998 . Working knowledge . Boston, MA :
Harvard Business School Press .• Devecchi, C. (2015)• Devecchi, C. and Petford, N. (2015) Universities in transition: Managing
knowledge and developing people through the use of intellectual capital • Devecchi, C. and Davis-Sinclair, L. (2015)• Ramirez, Y. et al (2013) Empirical Evidence for the Increasing Importance of
Intellectual Capital Reporting in Higher Education Institutions. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 3, 8, 39-51
References
• European Comission (2011) Supporting growth and jobs – An agenda for the modernisation of Europe’s higher education systems. Brussels: EC
• European Commission (2010), Europe 2020. A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth, COM (2010) 2020 final, CEC, Brussels.
• Goddard, J. (2015) The University and the City. Paper presented at the Urban University. Universities as place makers and agents of civic success in medium sized towns and cities, Conference, Guildhall, Northampton, 2-3 July 2015
• Grant, R . M. (1991) The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33, 3, 114-135
• Grimaldi, M. et al (2013) A methodology to assess value creation in communities of innovation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 13, 3, 305-330
• Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1992) The balanced scorecard – measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review,
• Leitner, K.H, et al. (2014) A Strategic Approach for Intellectual Capital Management in European Universities. Guidelines for Implementation. Brussels: Quality Assurance in Higher Education through Habilitation and Auditing
• Lesser , E. , and L. Prusak . 2001 . Preserving knowledge in an uncertain world. MIT Sloan Management Review, 43 ( 1 ): 101 – 102 .
• Perez, S. et al. (2015) Shaping new managerial models for European Universities: The impact of reporting and managing IC. In P. Ordonez de Pablos and L. Edvinsson (Eds.) Intellectual Capital in Organizations: Nonfinancial reports and accounts. London: Routledge
• Ricceri, F. (2008) Intellectual capital and Knowledge Management. Strategic management of knowledge resources . London: Routledge
