The recent Observatory of Borderless Higher Education (OBHE) article about what went wrong with UKeU is probably the most balanced and helpful commentary on UKeU yet published. The OBHE proposes that the key factors in what went wrong were timing, focus, branding, impatience and platform investment. I've got a few comments to make, particularly about the last of these. I also propose we need a helpful post-match analysis, not a witchhunt or, alternatively, a 'sweeping under the carpet' if we are to gain anything from the apparent expenditure of �35 million of the �55 million of public funds originally earmarked for UKeU. Let me get this out of the way first. The rather anodyne language of the HEFCE press release of 23 April masks the rather less anodyne reality for institutions that adopted the UKeU platform for their programme delivery. Let us not forget, also, the rather less anodyne reality of UKeU personnel who bought into the vision, moved from good posts elsewhere, poured boundless energy into the enterprise, assumed their prospects were bright, but instead now find themselves seeking new positions.
There is undoubtedly much to learn from the experience. Whilst some may prefer that the whole UKeU period fades from memory as quickly as possible, it's important that some mechanism be found by which the experiences (positive and negative), insights, and the differing perspectives of the stakeholders and various actors be captured. I am not arguing here for an official 'edited' version of events, I'm proposing more a robust 'truth and reconciliation' model.
If we leave it too long then memories will fade, the former UKeU and partner institutional personnel will either be scattered to the four winds and, or, become increasingly reluctant to revisit the past.
Jonathan Darby, who was Chief Architect and Technology Officer at UKeU, a founding member of ALT, and who now has a visiting fellowship at the eLearning Research Centre, University of Southampton provides a good example of the approach that is perhaps necessary. Jonathan's recent presentation at the Networked Learning 2004 conference in Lancaster, UK took a very open and reflective approach. Interestingly, at the time of writing, Jonathan's presentation is nowhere to be found on the official conference site. That's a pity.
Finally, moving to my comments about the UKeU platform.
The OBHE article of 23 April last on UKeU states:
“Platform innovation might better have come later once any drawbacks of third party systems had been demonstrated in practice … ”
My view is similar but not quite the same. For a time, the platform appeared to become the main pre-occupation of the UKeU. As a result the inevitable birth pangs of the platform provided an easy stick with which detractors could beat the company over the head. I believe that the platform should never have appeared to dominate the agenda. Instead of promulgating the development of an in-house 'world class' platform, from its inception, UKeU should have taken a very low key approach to platform development. Had such been the case, it could have quietly got on with investigating, rapid prototyping, testing, rejecting, and sometimes integrating the elements of a new type of platform. Who knows, it may have been possible, eventually, to announce to a suprised, and hopefully delighted, sector that such an entity existed. Instead it promulgated the vision and then had to hope it could deliver. Platform work could have been linked to that of the Research Centre, involved a signficant number of institutional stakeholders more intimately (which would have created a sense of sector ownership), and, above all, not been tied to early phase implementation/production deadlines. It would have required a small highly motivated 'commando' team of learning technologists and developers (some based in institutions), not an army of analysts and other contractors.
But the past is past and in the words of the Fleetwood Mac song 'Oh Well!'
