My organisation – the Institute of Educational Technology at the Open University – has recently been reviewed. I think our response to the review should be to become radically more open about what we do.
We had a meeting about the review with the Vice Chancellor and our immediate boss, Denise Kirkpatrick (Pro-Vice-Chancellor Learning and Teaching). I asked if it was Ok to blog about the review, and the VC said it was the first time anyone had asked (!) – but said fine so long as it’s circumspect.
In a circumspect nutshell, the review said that the staff in IET were “talented” but identified a serious problem in perceived value delivered to the University. The proposal of the reviewers was to split IET in two.
We’re now in to a discussion phase where we explore how we might respond to the review. To stick to the diplomatic and circumspect line, splitting precisely as proposed is proving a major challenge to operationalise. My colleagues have already kicked the ball rolling with the discussion about what we could actually do. Martin talks about how organisational structures are less important now:
There’s a lot of potential to improve things, as Will suggests:
And Patrick linked that back with the theme of new ways of working and said
So what is to be done?
I think – and this is very much the direction we as a unit have been moving for a long time – the main idea has to be increased openness about what we’re doing. Web 2.0 management!
One entirely-fun question – which I’m pleased that I’ve managed to hold off on, since it’s not what we need to focus on quite yet – is what technologies to use to support this. But suggestions welcome!