HEQED
Managing Development Work in HE:
reflections on the HEQED experience
This paper is a brief personal reflection on the experience of the HEQE
Division of DfEE and its predecessors1, over the last decade. It is a
personal view, from an Adviser who has worked with the Division for a
decade. It is designed to provoke discussion, not to represent a definitive
evaluation.
The HEQED Approach to Development
Since the Employment Department began commissioning development work in HE in the mid
1980s it has funded several hundred projects, ranging in scale from the 54 Enterprise in HE
projects (around £1M per institution over 5 years) to national Discipline Networks (all at
£15,000 pa for one or two years). The major themes have been increasing the employability
of graduates through institutional and curricular change (including strengthening employer
partnerships); increasing volume, quality and recognition of learning in the workplace;
widening access; developing modular and credit systems; improving and extending guidance
at all levels of HE. Currently there are projects in progress on eight themes. This work is
distinct from the more formal research commissioned through the Department’s Analytical
Services Division. Most work has been selective, with contracts allocated through a
competitive bidding process in response to prospectuses or other calls for tenders. The
targeting of particular programmes has been decided by the Division, usually following
consultation with relevant agencies in HE, or the world of employment. The majority of
contracts have been held by HEIs, with a small proportion going to TECs, NTOs and other
intermediary bodies.
Unlike most work funded directly by Government in education, these projects have neither
sought to be formal research, nor to implement predetermined schemes. Most of the work is
probably best described as “action research”, in that projects aim simultaneously to produce
change in the service delivered at local level, and to identify transferable lessons for
application or further development in other contexts.
The reason this form has emerged is threefold:



the best way to help HEIs to contribute more effectively to the labour
market is not always clear, and within the broad policy objectives,
colleagues in HEIs and other agencies have expertise and legitimate views
on priorities and strategies;
the diversity of institutions, disciplines, occupational sectors and local
contexts means that simple transferable models are rare, if they exist at all;
the constitutional autonomy and cultural traditions of HE institutions and
1
The work was begun in the mid 1980s by the Higher and Further Education Division of the
Department of Employment. Following the merger with the Department for Education to form the
DfEE the FE work was transferred elsewhere, and subsequent reorganisations have added
responsibilities for the LEONARDO programme and for the Department’s Quality Assurance functions
in HE.
sm/document1
1
21/08/2015 20:41:00
their staff mean that the DfEE cannot insist on particular action by HE
institutions: and only development undertaken on a partnership basis is
likely to be “owned” and embedded in the long term..
Strengths
At its best, this approach has built creative partnerships which have:



produced curricular and structural changes in HEIs which have made
graduates more employable and raised the skill and knowledge levels of
existing employees
supported parallel developments like the RoA, Profiling, developments in
quality and assessment practice in HE.
avoided the kind of “tokenism” experienced in some other areas of
Government funding. The partnership approach, handled generally with
considerable flexibility and sensitivity by the Department’s contract
managers and advisers (themselves normally recruited from the world of
HE), means that project staff have rarely been engaged simply in formal
meeting of targets to acquire funding.

increased knowledge of how change can be facilitated in HE, and of how
HE can relate to the labour market
The process has been assisted by the availability of specific, earmarked funding for specific
purposes. Although the sums are relatively small, they cannot be top sliced, nor diverted by
the institution.
Weaknesses
There have, however, sometimes been weaknesses. They include:





lack of connection between academic expertise and development work
within institutions
lack of dissemination and retention of lessons learned
rapid turnover of development staff - losing the acquired expertise
failure to connect development work to broader institutional strategic
development
lack of intellectual rigour in the management and evaluation of the work
Penetration and Impact
Over a decade, almost all HE institutions in England have participated in one or more of the
Division’s programmes, and a very large number of HE staff, ranging from temporary
researchers and administrators to Heads of School and PVCs have taken part. However, some
institutions have been much more heavily involved than others.
It is difficult to assess the impact of this work with any precision, because it often seeks to
produce subtle cultural change, which manifests itself in the practice of individual academics
- an area where no data is routinely collected, and little is collected in any form. Furthermore,
there are complex interactions between the DfEE work and that of other agencies seeking to
promote change in related areas. Impressionistic assessments however, suggest that there have
been changes in culture, organisation and practices within the system consistent with the
Department’s broad long term agenda.
sm/document1
2
21/08/2015 20:41:00
Institutional Management
Despite this, there is an ongoing concern that the impact of the work is not as widespread as
might be hoped, partly as a result of underinvestment in dissemination (an issue currently
under review), and partly because of issues to do with institutional capacity to manage and
embed development work.
Institutional capacity to manage development and change is a major issue for the HE system
as a whole, and the experience of the HEQED work suggests that there are a number of areas
where improvements might be made. The following are some personal observations of
shortcomings of many institutions in engaging with the DfEE’s agenda. Not all observers
would necessarily agree, and not all apply to a majority of institutions, but all point to a need
to review how institutions might be helped to engage more effectively in development work.
Some of the lessons probably also have implications for other areas of the work of HEIs,
where much work is, in practice, organised in a “project like” way.
Bidding
most HEQED work is commissioned through competitive bidding.
Some institutions and individuals are evidently more skilled at
writing bids (which does not always correlate with competence at
undertaking the work). Many bids are stronger on rationale than
methodology, and fail to present clear and achievable outcomes.
Strategic links
some institutions are poor at linking development project work to
institutional strategy, especially when a piece of work is conceived
as a “project”. Sometimes this reflects the institutional culture embedding key skills in the curriculum for all undergraduates is
extremely difficult in a highly devolved institution, where more
people have the power to prevent innovation than to progress it.
Local and national
the rationale for the HEQED investing money in a small number of
institutions is that lessons will be learned for wider application. The
Division is therefore interested in the relationship between project
findings and the national policy agenda. Project staff sometimes
have difficulty in seeing the bigger picture, and recognising the need
to identify transferable lessons.
Project steering
normally a project steering committee is constituted to manage a
project. Often such committees include a substantial number of nonacademics. Institutions are not always good at managing such
groups, to ensure that all members have a clear role, and the ability
to use their particular talents to the full.
Partnership
projects and institutions, especially those new to working with the
Division, sometimes take time to develop an effective working
relationship with HEQED. Most commonly they are surprised at the
extent of the Division’s interest in the content (as distinct from the
contract), and its willingness to debate and negotiate around ways of
tackling the objectives
Staffing
institutions often recruit temporary staff to take on the major burden
of project work. Such staff often start at a disadvantage in terms of
knowledge of formal and informal structures, and credibility. They
work best when they have access to powerful patrons.
Knowledge retention
It is common for much of the knowledge acquired through the
project to reside with the individual project worker/s. The pressures
of individual careers mean that such individuals often leave when
the project ends (and often before). As a result, the “institutional
learning” may be very much less than it appears.
Evaluation
in the past, evaluation has been a weak point in much of the work.
Formal evaluations have been commissioned, but their findings
sm/document1
3
21/08/2015 20:41:00
have often not influenced future development. Individual project
staff have often regarded evaluation as something “done to” them,
rather than a process in which they are engaged. The Division has
distilled some of its experience into an Evaluation Guide which is
now distributed to all new projects, but project staff still sometimes
have difficulty in engaging with the process.
Stephen McNair
HE Adviser HEQED
November 1998
sm/document1
4
21/08/2015 20:41:00