![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
EDUCAUSE Quarterly
|
![]() |
Crowdsourcing in Higher Education ITCrowdsourcing in Higher Education ITCrowdsourcing in Higher Education IT
As an idea management tool, crowdsourcing has made little headway at institutions of higher education. Yet this age of doing more with less calls for exactly what crowdsourcing has to offer: a quick, relatively inexpensive way to tap into the resources and opinions of a committed community. What Is Crowdsourcing?Although there are several definitions for crowdsourcing, here I define it as the process of continual idea-based problem solving by communities with the intent of improving a product or service in which they have a vested interest. Why Crowdsourcing?The challenge of allocating scarce resources to maximize benefits has become harder than before with the downturn in the economy and ensuing budget cuts. IT staffs, in particular, must do more with less, rolling out solutions quickly while maintaining or improving quality of service. In this struggle for efficiencies, IT risks allocating resources to initiatives that might not give the institution the biggest bang for its buck. Crowdsourcing can help with some of the tough choices institutions are facing today, in the following ways:
Understanding the EnvironmentA typical higher education institution has several communities:
The first three are active participants in the daily functioning of the institution. They can provide valuable insight into inefficiencies in services. On the other hand, alumni and retirees are comparatively passive participants who support the institution for emotional reasons. Their support typically is either financial or advisory. These two communities can provide an outsider’s perspective to an institution, especially with respect to its perceived image. Knowing and engaging all of these communities is critical for the successful implementation of idea management. Multiple CampusesCrowdsourcing can present even more of a challenge at an institution with multiple campuses — especially when those campuses are in different parts of a state or country. Such campuses can have varying degrees of autonomy, depending on the institution’s policies and the unique campus cultures. Opening up a crowdsourcing platform to communities that might have disparate preferences can create additional challenges. At the same time, it can create tremendous opportunities to explore a common solution to an issue that affects all campuses. The Process of Idea ManagementIn crowdsourcing, there are three steps to managing and implementing ideas, as Figure 1 shows. 1. GatherThe first step is to gather ideas and then publish them for public opinion. This requires solicitation of new ideas on an ongoing basis or at key points in time. Ongoing solicitation is the best, but requires dedicated resources. Solicitation at a point in time invites the risk of losing ideas — people might forget or loose interest in communicating their ideas if they can’t do so immediately. The downside to immediate communication is that contributors might not have vetted or thought through their ideas. Another important consideration is whether the institution should filter ideas before publishing them for public opinion. Too many bad ideas can discourage participation, but filtering ideas can raise important questions about the system’s fairness and freedom of speech. Public or community opinion is another key aspect of gathering ideas. Opinions must be visible to encourage healthy dialogue. But, monitoring opinions and managing them — that is, discouraging those that are out of line or out of context — is important to keeping the conversation relevant. 2. ProcessThe second step is processing the submitted ideas and the associated public comments. Processing involves deciding which ideas are popular enough to implement or are possible to implement. For example, a great idea can be beyond the institution’s resources. In that case, the institution might have to choose an idea that has less popular support but is within its resources. Another key aspect of processing ideas is communicating the reason for choosing an idea for implementation. Transparency is necessary for crowdsourcing to work. 3. ImplementImplementation requires the dedication of an institution’s resources. An idea or a group of ideas chosen for implementation might conflict with the institution’s current priorities. The implementation process establishes the priority and the scope of the implementation, and allocates budget and other resources. As with the process step, it is very important to communicate the progress of the implementation to build confidence in the process. This also conveys the institution’s commitment to better serving its communities. Implementing CrowdsourcingAs a central service organization, the campus IT organization is best suited to incubate and nurture the crowdsourcing effort. The demands on IT organizations have increased because budgets are declining while departments demand more help to automate business processes. Today collaboration (to reduce costs) and resource prioritization have assumed more importance than in the past. Although there are several uses for crowdsourcing, this section concentrates primarily on the process of going from idea to implementation using crowdsourcing. I recommend a phased approach to implementing crowdsourcing; advantages include:
It’s possible to implement crowdsourcing in three phases. Depending on the success of the implementation within a phase, an organization can choose to implement the next phase. Phase 1: Pilot Within ITPhase 1 lays out the foundation for the crowdsourcing platform. Initiatives within the IT organization itself make ideal candidates for the initial use of crowdsourcing. Figure 2 shows how the three steps apply to a pilot within IT.
Phase 2: Partner with Another CSOOnce the IT organization is comfortable with the crowdsourcing processes, it can partner with another central service organization (facilities, for example) that is similar to the IT organization and willing to use the existing crowdsourcing platform and process. Figure 3 shows this process. The idea management coordinators for the two departments collaborate to identify any overlapping initiatives. The purpose of the second phase is threefold:
Following successful collaboration and implementation of ideas, the two organizations can then partner with additional organizations on campus. Phase 3: Expand to Other Areas of the InstitutionOnce a critical mass of organizations is actively using the crowdsourcing platform, the institution can hire an idea management officer, who will have the following responsibilities:
The final stage involves elevating the budgeting function from an organizational level to an institutional level, as shown in Figure 4. The institution now uses the institutional idea portfolio as input to the overall budgeting process. ConclusionWith budget cuts and increased demand for IT services, effective collaboration and allocation of scarce resources have assumed more importance than before. It is in the vested interest of IT organizations to take the lead in introducing crowdsourcing to their respective institutions, making sure that the process yields successful implementations of ideas. With incremental steps, IT organizations can foster communities that consume as well as improve IT services. In doing so, the IT organization and its parent institution can take advantage of a better way to stay in touch with the needs of their communities. © 2011 Pankaj Sharma. The text of this article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. |
![]() |
| EDUCAUSE Quarterly authors retain the copyright to their intellectual content, with individual articles licensed under Creative Commons licenses. EQ articles reflect the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of EDUCAUSE or its members. For more information about EDUCAUSE copyright, please see http://www.educause.edu/copyright | |||
Thank you for your insightful comments Patrick.
p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }
Pankaj,
Excellent article. I've seen tremendous value in extending decision-making and governance out to the community. I think there are a few more important considerations in addition to those you've mentioned for any organization interested in such an approach. James Surowiecki offers three criteria for "intelligent crowds" in his book, The Wisdom of Crowds: diversity, independence, and decentralization.
1. Diversity. A group with many different points of view will make better decisions than one where everyone knows the same information.
2. Independence. People's opinions are not determined by those around them.
3. Decentralization. Power does not fully reside in one central location, and many of the important decisions are made by individuals based on their own local and specific knowledge rather than by an omniscient or farseeing planner.
I think many, in my experience socializing this approach, equate crowds with committees--committees are, after all, often external to the IT shop and composed of folks working in other roles than IT. However, this is a fatal mistake for any organization hoping to realize the benefits of crowd-sourcing. Committees are not diverse, they often represent groups within the campus with shared values, direction and motivations. Committees are not independent, that is, because the members can discuss and thus influence one another, those with independent ideas may be suppressed or convinced of another route. Committees are obviously not decentralized as they are most often formed, tasked and granted authority by central management.
Within Agile methods there is a concept of "self-organizing groups." These groups, discover and coalesce around affinity issues based on their own needs (which may or may not be tied to their official campus role/status). Self-organizing groups exhibit two qualities, first they are free to form for any reason, that is, they are not appointed by an authority promoting a centralized goal/objective and do not require specific participants or exclude others outside the sector/field; secondly, once the group has formed around a topic, the roles within the group are determined by the group members themselves and not based on titles, status, etc. It is from these self-organizing groups that direction for development is determined. Indeed one way I have regulated resources (said no to something) is by highlighting the lack of participation with a specific initiative. If, as Jim Highsmith says, services should be developed at the same pace users can articulate needs, and no one is participating, then things must not have reached a tipping point where a new feature/system/etc. is required.
There is quite a different set of expectations--and outcomes--between an "e-Portfolio Committee" and a group that forms to define ways to measure student achievement.
Thanks again,
Patrick Masson