Technology-Supported Processes for Agile and Responsive Curricula

Core Aim 1

Informing programme design activity through the enhanced provision of pertinent information

Core Aim 2Redesign of the ICT infrastructure which

underpins the workflow of the curriculum design and

programme approval processes

Core Aim 3

Electronic support for course team dialogue

during their programme design activity

Core Aim 4Electronic representation

of programmes and underpinning evidence at

(and leading up to) the point of approval

Notify Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower

Leve

l of

en

gage

me

nt Stakeholders may encounter

project publicity.Stakeholders are regularly and reliably informed, made aware of their rights and ways of participating in the project.

Project staff obtain views of stakeholders. Stakeholders receive fullfeedback on decisions taken.

Project staff work with stakeholders through decision making processes to ensure views are understood and taken into account.

All aspects of decision making processes are undertaken in partnership with stakeholders.

Stakeholders set agendas for change. Selforganisation and responsibility over management is held by stakeholders.

Stak

eh

old

er

role

s Stakeholders as passive recipients of uncontextualisedinformation. Dialogue with project staff is not expected.

Stakeholders as passive recipients of broadly contextualised information. Dialogue with project staff is implicitly welcomed but not explicitly invited.

Stakeholders as respondents. Designated consultation time/space in meetings. Feedback/right of reply strategies. Some dialogue with project staff is expected.

Stakeholders as project team members. Stakeholder appointment on project boards. Stakeholders supported in their involvement through training.

Stakeholders as collaborators. Stakeholders on management committees. Stakeholder shaped policy making. Stakeholder interest/action groups.

Stakeholders as (independent) designers. Distributed decision making. Stakeholder managers. Stakeholder ‘ownership’ of resources, events, policies and learning.

Enga

gem

en

t to

ols Occasional newsletters.

Access to minutes and documents. Static website.

Briefings. Regular blogs. Targeted letters.

Comment/opinion polls. Focus groups (stakeholders as respondents). Project staff led consultation workshops. Project staff led questionnaires and interviews.

Workshops. Voting. Active focus groups. Joint-lead consultations. Interviews (open).

Stakeholder led consultations. Interviewsopen / closed (stakeholder directed). Open forums. Rich picture activities. Away days with stakeholders and project teams.

Stakeholder managed consultation activities and tools development.

An

tici

pat

ed

Ef

fect

Potential for peripheral general awareness.

Potential for informed,contextualised awareness.

Widespread verifiable contextualised awareness. Emergence of reaction data.

Emergent reaction data is not framed exclusively by project staff. Stakeholder agendas are collected and recognised.

Agendas emerge only from collaborative activity with stakeholders.

New mechanisms are established which are stakeholder owned. Project is self-sustainable with no expectation of project team intervention.

= Moodle = Mahara = SharePoint

The Ladder of EngagementSince we are using technologies already adopted by the University, we can concentrate on supporting the use of these technologies in new modes to support new workflows. This means that ‘stakeholder engagement’ is our highest priority; we are using the model below as a template for this

engagement – it guides our communication plans and defines the type of activity needed to achieve a particular level of ‘buy-in’:

ScopeBecause the focus of the T-SPARC project is

curriculum design, it necessarily touches upon a whole raft of University work-streams. As such, the Project Team advance the aims of

the T-SPARC project through working with all of the themes shown in the Wordle graphic to

the right (centre bottom) through existing University working groups and committees.

ActivityCommittee and working group activities include:• Learning and Teaching Committee• Working group for the redesign of the review

and approval mechanisms• Working group for the Learning Community

initiative (student engagement)• RoLEx (Redesign of the Learning Experience)

Project Board

Adapted from Rudd et al (2006)