PIPaL: JISC BCE at Loughborough

2. Methodology

leave a comment »

The project employed a range of approaches to piloting the JISC Self-Analysis Framework and gathering feedback on it. These included one-to-one interviews with stakeholders and stakeholder workshop consultation. IBIX5 Consulting, experts on Relationship Management systems and their application in Higher Education, acted as external facilitators. Andrea Addison from IBIX5 is a co-author of this report.

In the early stages of the project we explored using the templates from the Self-Analysis Framework directly with our stakeholders. We found that a more conversational approach provided the best results, and hence did not take this further. However, several of our peers in the JISC programme used the questionnaire format to undertake large scale surveys of their staff and students.

Our interviews did not follow a strictly prescribed format, and we encouraged the interviewee to take the initiative. This is an area that our stakeholders already have a great deal of interest in taking forward, and several members of the group already had experience of using Relationship Management software and systems. One of our stakeholders had led an institutional Relationship Management implementation at another Higher Education institution.

The project made use of staff from the University’s IT Services department working as analysts. One staff member already had significant experience of “Customer Relationship Management” in a commercial context. However, this was a small scale project with minimal dedicated staff resources. Thus the role of the stakeholders and their nominees was crucial, and we were gratified by the level of interest shown.
The format of this case study closely follows the structure of the JISC Self-Analysis Framework itself:

  • Relationship Management technology in the wider sense
  • The particular needs of educational institutions
  • Analysis of existing networks of “customer” and “partner” relationships
  • Existing use of this technology at the institution
  • Readiness for change
  • Process maps of existing practices
  • Technology choices

We then go on to extrapolate the current and potential impact of Relationship Management systems at Loughborough from the results of applying the Self-Analysis Framework, and make recommendations for further work.


Written by Martin Hamilton

September 4, 2010 at 12:37 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: