Business and Community Engagement (BCE) is the strategic management of relationships with external partners and clients integrated with the associated knowledge exchange and workforce development services.
This Phase 0 evaluation report provides JISC with an overview of the sector’s strategic imperatives for the range of BCE activities, as evidenced through recently published institutional records of strategy (such as Corporate, IT, Learning & Teaching, Research) and funding proposals (notably HEIF4 and SDF).
The Phase 0 report focuses on manifestations of and synergies between the four BCE dimensions (Community, cultural & public engagement, Employer engagement, Knowledge transfer & innovation and Lifelong learning), looking for evidence of how BCE is embedded in and enabled through information management strategies, marketing, customer relationship management and other institutional business processes.
The report recognises clear strategic intent and movement towards the adoption and embedding of the BCE mission amongst Further & Higher Education institutions. These developments appear strongest in institutions benefitting from focused funding programmes, where BCE developments appear to be taking place almost irrespective of any traditional characterisations regarding research or teaching. Notwithstanding evidence of weakness in terms of depth and reach across the sectors and in the knowledge transfer and community dimensions, and bearing in mind the age of some documents (dating back to 2005), this represents an encouraging baseline upon which to build.
The report is based on sample of around 20% of the combined Further & Higher Education sectors (92 institutions provided documents with a significant additional number involved in the 11 Lifelong Learning Networks reviewed). Considerations such as geography, institutional focus (Research, Teaching, Specialist) were balanced as far as the available documentation allowed in the timeframe.
The importance of deriving evidence from institutions in receipt of BCE focused funding (e.g. Employer Engagement, HEIF4, LLN) led to an emphasis on HE institutions and LLN networks, with evidence from 30 FE colleges providing a basis for comparison.
In order to mine the most likely sources of BCE adoption and embedding, the sample includes 19 out of 30 HEFCE Employer Engagement pilots plus Beacons of Public Engagement and participants in Cultural Engagement (Scotland) and Third Mission (Wales) programmes.
It is not possible to study close to 200 such documents without noting factors such as institutional writing style and confidentiality of key documents which may mask the substance of what is truly planned, leading to both over and under representation of what is really taking place. Nevertheless, positioned alongside the other evaluation mechanisms adopted by JISC, this represents a informative exercise, as illustrated by differentiation generated through the adopted scoring methodology.
The analysis of documentation involved a 2-dimensional framework which assessed each BCE ‘dimension’ (Community, cultural & public engagement, Employer engagement, Knowledge transfer & innovation and Lifelong learning) in the context of institutional business processes (namely Marketing and other client facing business processes, IM Strategy & Applications, Learning & Teaching and Research) and also cross cutting synergies.
Institutional documents were reviewed in the context of this 40 cell matrix with scores allocated to each cell (e.g. the Research intersection with Employer Engagement) on a four point scale:
0 – Relevant but not referenced at all
1 – Weak Implicit reference
2 – Positive Explicit reference
3 – Strong Explicit detail
The resulting scorecard of 120 points across 40 scoring criteria provides the framework for the comparative analysis that is the basis of this Phase 0 report and may offer a progressive maturity model that can be built up over the life of the BCE programme.
For comparative purposes scores are divided into 5 bands:
HE Employer Engagement pilot institutions (12) and Lifelong Learning Networks (7) are predominant in the top 20 overall scores, with no other HEIs and just one FE college.
The top 20 scores are sparsely distributed (20 institutions spread over a range of 22 points), indicating that commitment in this area is highly visible and clearly differentiated.
The ranking of organisations in funded programmes is significantly higher than average. Whether this is a function of institutions skilfully responding to the emphasis of the funding stream, whether the words bear any relation to performance and whether the activity outlasts the cash injection are matters for ongoing consideration. However, we can conclude that engagement with BCE principles is more consistent and more specific in these cases.
The relative profiles of the English regions are not unlike those seen in a range of BERR and wider Regional Development Agency measures. Despite the inclusion of major regional HEIs in the sample, the low volumes recorded here for the North East (one EE pilot and no others) and the South West (one non-EE score) may be significant.
Binary characterisation of research or teaching focus does not appear as a key driver of commitment and performance at any level of the BCE adoption ladder. Institutions of all types stand or fall in BCE terms based on other criteria – on the will to commit to engagement in terms of organisational change, including process improvement and staff expectations.
The overall ranking of HEIs indicates the significance of the Employer Engagement (EE) funding stream amongst the sample. Conversely, one of the 20 top scoring HE institutions outside the EE pilot achieved Band 1 or 2. This may partially be accounted for by the narrower set of documents assessed. However, it is observed that many of the key indicators arose specifically within the SDF business plans for Employer Education, linked to complimentary HEIF4 funding.
A most interesting comparison between these two groups is the range of aspiration and application expressed by the Employer Engagement HEIs, when set against the relative levelling of the non-EE top 20 grouping. The level of BCE integration reported by the top scoring EE institutions is particularly encouraging, involving a balance of backgrounds (research, teaching and specialist) and geographies.
Unlike HE, in the FE college sector the only relevant document typically published on institutional websites was the strategic plan or an annual review. Within these limits the documentary evidence was of good quality and showed a sector that is engaging to a greater or lesser extent with the BCE agenda. All the documents examined had some mention of aspects of this agenda and there were some outstanding exemplars, particularly from Scotland.
In terms of business engagement, all but one of the strategies examined had some reference to employers. As might be expected, there is a strong emphasis on the role of colleges in training the employed workforce, and on delivering vocational programmes leading to employability. However, there was evidence of engaging employers more closely in designing curriculum provision and tailoring provision. Whilst not necessarily linked to employer engagement, many colleges emphasise lifelong learning and widening participation undertakings. Most have something to say about being inclusive and welcoming diversity among their student population, and about encouraging progression.
Unsurprisingly, references to knowledge transfer activities in the FE sector were far fewer and in the main not research-led, with less than a quarter of the sample using the term at all. Community engagement, perhaps surprisingly, has a low profile in the documentation. The geographical location and cultural context of the college can make a difference: community-facing activities feature less in urban colleges, but more strongly in colleges in large rural areas without HE institutions in the immediate vicinity.
Given the limited documentation, evidence about whether and to what extent BCE plans are reflected in plans for other aspects of college operation is limited. It is notable however that documentation from Scottish colleges tended to be most comprehensive, including three strong exemplars.
FE has a long tradition of working with employers and engaging with the community, but perhaps in relatively limited ways with a focus on training and adult education. If the wider BCE agenda is taking hold then evidence of it has by and large not yet surfaced to the public strategic level, with the exception of FE college participation in the Lifelong Learning Networks. It would be valid therefore to consider whether an intervention like the HEFCE Employer Engagement programme would help colleges to share, improve and embed BCE-related practice in the way it seems to be assisting in the HE sector.
The Lifelong Learning Networks, operating sub-regionally in England since 2006, have provided significant evidence to be considered in the Phase 0 BCE evaluation.
The process through which the LLNs were initially funded ensured that the lifelong learning and employer engagement elements of the BCE mission played a prominent and synergistic part in their business plans, alongside a typically more low key interest in community engagement. Perhaps understandably, however, Knowledge Transfer is almost entirely absent from LLN plans.
The LLNs have arguably played a significant role in developing formal models for engaging the business community as well as the associated intermediaries and brokers, such as local Business Links and Chambers of Commerce. The following strengths are generally noted across the range of LLNs in terms of the BCE mission:
However, the strengths themselves raise challenges to the BCE priority of embedding in core institutional (internal not external) processes. As a worst case, LLNs may be viewed a passing distraction from BCE embedding because they take key issues and responsibilities outside the local institution frame. Nevertheless, the development of LLNs across the English sub-regions has generated a wealth of thinking and practice at the leading edge of Business and Community Engagement.
Comparative analysis of the four BCE dimensions was based on the 20 organisations gaining the highest scores specific to that dimension. It indicates significantly different profiles and trajectories, with Employer Engagement and to some degree Lifelong Learning being most readily adapted to the integrated approach central to the BCE mission.
| All Dimensions | Employer Engagement | Lifelong Learing | Knowledge Transfer | Community Engagement | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scoring 50%+ | 0 | 11 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| Scoring 33%+ | 7 | 25 | 13 | 1 | 3 |
| No.1 (max 30) | 17 | 24 | 18 | 11 | 16 |
| No.20 Score
|
10 | 12 | 7 | 6 | 4 |
Only 3 organisations (all LLNs) have gained a third or more and just 6 gained 20%+ of the maximum CCP score – only marginally improving on KT scoring
The ranking is dominated by the LLNs (8 placed in top 20)
CCP bears no particular relationship to the Employer Engagement programme; however, both sampled Beacons of Public Engagement are in the top 15
The full cross-sector data set was utilised to assess the integration and embedding of BCE in three institutional business process areas:
High level comparison of the 3 process areas is instructive. Embedding, integration and synergies relating to BCE are most apparent in relation to the academic mission (learning, teaching and research), with a stronger leading group performance in Information Management than in the wider processes.
| Academic Mision | Information Management | Wider Processes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scoring 33%+ | 14 | 7 | 5 |
| No.1 (max 24) | 14 | 13 | 12 |
| Top Ten Average Score | 9.7 | 9.5 | 7.8 |
| No.20 Score | 7 | 5 | 6 |
| Best Dimension | EE in L&T | LL in IM Apps | EE in Marketing |
Based on the findings outlined above, the BCE Phase 0 evaluation report concentrates on 10 recommendations, divided between Evaluation, Impact and Reach.
| Evaluation | 1. Translate BCE Values – Ensure the values that underpin the four BCE dimensions and that are used in funding and evaluation processes are expressed in sufficient detail to elicit unambiguous and explicit actions from institutions. |
| 2. Ensure access to documentation – Mandate that a useful level of documentation relating to public funding proposals should be readily available in the public realm and to appropriate evaluators. | |
| Impact | 3. Surface BCE in FE – Engage with the FE college sector to agree how its strong BCE foundations can be more explicitly developed within the BCE programme. |
| 4. Leverage the LLNs – Work with the LLN community to build on the strengths of the Networks and to progress sustainable IT enabled business process models that work for institutions, employers and learners. | |
| 5. Position Knowledge Transfer & Innovation – Develop the sector wide understanding of the KT dimension, especially through the business driven opportunities surrounding regional innovation programmes. | |
| 6. Build on the Employer Engagement driver – Define and deliver focused BCE programme activity that will assist planners and practitioners with ongoing implementation. | |
| 7. Confront the Information Management challenge – Recognise that IM is a most complex and yet potentially very fruitful area, essential to catalyse helpful process change; therefore create a BCE IM forum that engages leaders and designers at necessary levels. | |
| Reach | 8. Address Professional Implications – Work with HR representatives, managers and practitioners to understand and build workforce models that recognise the new types of professional required in an embedded BCE culture. |
| 9. Highlight real implementation – Develop longitudinal case studies of value in teaching, research, administration and management roles that will assist in the cycle from recognition of BCE values and qualification of opportunities to implementation approaches, embedding and improvement. | |
| 10. Enable self-assessment – Assist in the development of the local institution-wide cross-role dialogue that is essential for process change and embedding. |
Downloads:
Last updated by JISC Monitoring Unit on Thursday, April 16, 2009.
