Can universities become more agile?

To be agile means to have the ability to move quickly and easily. It’s fair to say that this is not a notion one naturally associates with universities. Universities are generally brilliant at lumbering along rather than doing things swiftly. This is not to say that many countries do not have a strong system of university education, but it is rare indeed to see a good idea become a prompt reality.

It is usually subject to discussion by discipline, then department, then school or faculty, a couple of central university committees, with maybe a designated working group being set up to look at it also, and the preparation of a discussion paper or two that goes out for consultation somewhere in the midst of the meetings had by the various layers of committees.

That good idea could take six months – if you are really, really lucky – and probably more like 12 to 18 months to come to fruition. By then that good idea may have lost its gloss, been superseded or taken up somewhere else (heaven forbid by another competitor higher education provider down the road).

Most countries have diversity in terms of who delivers higher education. Universities along with technical colleges and a growing number of private institutions provide that diversity of choice of provider.

I have always been struck by the positive capacity smaller universities and reputable private provider colleges of higher education have to be responsive to a new idea, to changes in industry or business and their quick action in redesigning or adding a new course, or in updating their learning resources and teaching spaces.

In praise of the smaller university

The well-run, effective smaller-sized institutions of higher education tend to have close working relationships with industry and are quick to react to workplace and economic shifts. Many tend to deliver their courses to students in one mode – face-to-face – and class numbers tend to be small in comparison with larger and multi-campus universities. Their size means a more personalised student teaching-learning experience.

They also have well-cultivated links with industry or business and generally include a strong emphasis on practical employment skills development in their courses. The latter can mean high graduate employment rates – a real selling point with students. They also tend to employ more teaching staff who are practitioners (as opposed to researchers), and bring current, real world learning into the classroom.

My own recent experiences have led me to conclude that what is being offered by some – not all – private higher education providers is more contemporary in terms of knowledge content, more relevant in terms of skills development and more authentic in terms of student assessment expectations than some commensurate university courses.

Further, they offer better-equipped, state-of-the-art laboratories and more regular industry experience for students than their university counterparts. They have a clear purpose. Their structure is lean and rational. Everybody knows what his or her job is and is able to get on and do it. They can move quickly if and when required.

Meaningless bureaucracy

Most universities are what I would describe as sluggish in their conduct. The move to mega structures within universities over the past few years has led to even more meaningless bureaucracy being the norm. These mammoth, supersized divisions, centres or faculties certainly don’t encourage agility, efficiency or innovation, nor do they promote timely, quality decision-making.

Universities are a protected species, well-funded by the taxpayer, unlike private providers. It is easier for staff to hide, for management to underperform, for the leadership to delay doing things, or just not do anything, than it is in a private college that is very dependent for its survival and growth on its reputation in teaching and graduate employment.

In fairness to universities, size is a determining factor in how speedily changes can be made, but the reality is some universities appear to have lost sight of their main functions – teaching and research, not administrivia and form-filling – and students and ultimately society are the losers.

Nita Temmerman (PhD) is a former university pro vice-chancellor (academic) and executive dean of the faculty of education at the University of Southern Queensland, Australia. She is currently visiting professor to Ho Chi Minh City Open University and Papua New Guinea University of Technology; academic reviewer at the University of Queensland, Australia; as well as invited specialist with the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications; invited external reviewer with Oman Academic Accreditation Authority; and a published author.