Date post: | 11-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | leilani-gulick |
View: | 220 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Re-examining Higher Education as a Service system
Alistair Sutcliffe
Visiting Professor,UCL Interaction Centre,
University College, London
CSR, Manchester, May 25th 2012
Presentation Outline
1. Higher Education as a service ?
2. Service Quality and Gaps analysis
3. Motivations & values in HE services
4. Implications for services marketing and research agenda
Service Systems-Conceptual Frameworks
IHIP (Kotler 2003, Pride and Ferrell 2003)
Intangibility, Heterogeneity, (variability)Inseparability,Perishability,
Rental Access Model (Lovelock & Gummesson 2004)
Physical act on Person, Physical act on Object, Mental act on person,Information Processing
Services are ‘rented’ and ‘experienced’ … so what is the student experience ?
Services are composedand co- experiencedProvider- Consumerrelationship
Services as transient actsand resourcesAccess not ownership
HE Products or Services ?
• Education to attain a degree (product view)
• General skills and vocational education
• Learning for life (meta learning)
• Social learning and experience- networking
Perceived rewards:
degree commodity- improved earning and career potential
social experience- ‘best time of my life’ (hedonism) and personal learning
HE Challenges
• Students as paying customers- more focus on value for money
• More regulation from government- quality assurance
• Declining resources from government
• More competition- world HE market place
Need to re-think Higher Education
- as flexible services rather than products
- focus on service quality
- manage the consumer relationship- HE service marketing
HE Service Quality Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1988):
• Tangibles University Infrastructure and facilities often tired and poorly maintained
• ReliabilityVariable depends on individual lecturers, courses, departments
• ResponsivenessVariable as above, but standardisation- service levels may help
• AssuranceDepends of staff student relationship and staff reputation
• EmpathyDepends of staff attitude, personal skills, and accessibility
Service Quality- SERVQUAL Gaps
• GAP 1: (Knowing customers’ expectations)Many student surveys- but do we ask the right questions ?Tendency to treat students as a homogenous populationNo in depth research on students’ motivations and values
• GAP 2: (Wrong service quality standards)More and more standards- but HE as a formula, commodity experience ??Standards create an impersonal experience (empathy ??)
• GAP 3: (Service performance)Poor staff morale
Inadequate support (support service quality)
• GAP 4: (Promises do not match delivery) Manchester as a world class University (erm ?? Look at delivery in the USA)
• GAP 5: (Customer satisfaction)National Student survey – oh dear !- but is it the whole story ?
Service Quality - threats
• Increased student numbers- less resource to maintain reliability, responsiveness, etc
• Tuition fees- students as consumers- attitude change
• Increased pressure on research and teaching quality from government
Organisational response• More standardisation of teaching process, documentation, delivery and
assessment
• Outsourcing effort to technology (Blackboard) and students themselves- more use of TAs and peer mentoring
• But what is the impact on Service Quality ??
A way forward ?
1. We need a more sophisticated view of student experience and expectations of HE service
2. Student experience needs to be tailored- customised marketing and delivery
3. Short term (at Uni) and long term (post Uni) perceptions of HE quality need to be reconciled
Values- motivations- rewards need to be understood
Service delivery needs to be aligned to students’ values and motivations
Service Motivations & Values
Short term Long term
ServiceDeliveryServiceDelivery
ServiceDeliveryService
Marketing
ServiceDelivery
ConsumerMotivations
& Goals
ServiceDelivery
ValueRealisation
ConsumerGroups
expectationmanagement
Motivations for Higher Education
Achievement
Esteem
Curiosity
Socialisation
Belonging,security
Identity
Eficacy(Bandura)
Locusof Control
(Rotter)
Possession
Power
Self
Peer
HE Motivation & Value Conflicts
Short term Long term
Social ExperienceHedonism
Attain a Degree
Reducecost
CommodityEducation
“dumbing down”degree standards
University Reputation
Career progressEnhanced earnings
Meta-learning?Social learning?
Student experience- longer term
Initial Experience
Mid term Experience
Long-term
Value perceptionAchievementSelf esteem
Value appreciationMeta learningEfficacy
Value growthReputationPeer EsteemSocial Identity
QoS Quality of Service Relationship
Implications for Service Marketing
• Value proposition- - Need to emphasise value delivery over the whole life span- Make the links clear ….reputation has to be earned- No gain without some pain – commodity education devalues value in the long term
• Connect the implicit –learning for life with immediate service delivery
• Explain value proposition to overcome the hump of indifference
Learning effort
Value reward & motivation
Implications for Services Marketing-2
For longer term Value realisation
• Relationship {trust} is important as well as the service {experience}
- personal relationships, no anonymous students- organisational transparency, active response to feedback
• Co creation in value realisation / service experience
- more {student} involvement In course delivery- more involvement in university management
• Personalise with perspective
- better explanation of learning goals (beyond PDPs)- better connection current {prospective} students with
alumni
Implications for Service Delivery
• More resources, more staff more personalised service, etc
the ideal but realistic ?
• Different learning methods, team mentoring, beyond PBE to learning by involvement staff/TAs as a team member
• More Socratic tutorial based discussion & personal contact
• Knowledge delivery by demonstration, discovery and co-creation
- so what gives ? Maybe lectures, knowledge content on the web/Blackboard
Implications for Service Delivery-2
• Tune delivery to student ability… cohorts and individuals
- high ability students- learning is self motivating, but need to stretch their horizons- co creation of value in meta learning.
- mid band ability- learning is more achievement motivated, need to emphasise efficacy, peer esteem, and locus of control
how ? research on self awareness and collective awareness
- lower ability band- differentiate learning difficulties from poor motivation
• Less standardisation in process and assessment
Research Agenda I
• Surveys of student motivations using theory directed questions
• Scenario analysis of students’ value perceptions and short v. long term value trade offs.
• Case studies of different learning methods with follow up evaluations of value
• Comparison of service delivery in new Universities (more responsive products and delivery?) and old Universities (reputation and meta learning value)
Research Agenda II
• Flexible composition of HE services- beyond modules, courses, degrees
• Life long consumer relationshipsubscription Universities, services for life long learning
• Marketing HE service valuereputation and responsibilitystudent awareness of their individual contribution to the collective reputation
• Responsiveness and Assurancenew processes for student involvement –co design of courses ?
Some Carry-home Messages
• HE Services are not perishable, value is co-created and realisation long term
• Time to re-think….
- Alumni relationships- not just a cash cow
- HE service ‘composition’ beyond modules to continuum of research.. Tutorials… Exec Ed… Workshop seminars.. Etc
- Student Experience, short and the long term
Any questions ? and some references for the curious
Lovelock CH, Gummesson E (2004) Whither services marketing? In search of a new paradigm and fresh perspectives. Journal of Service Research 7(1):20-41.
Lovelock CH, Wirtz J (2007) Services marketing: People, technology, strategy (6th edition). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Lusch RF, Vargo SL (2006) The service-dominant logic of marketing: Dialog, debate, and directions. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk.
Vargo SL, Lusch RF (2008) Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36(1):1-10.
Soares L, and Ostrom A. (2012) College as a Service CaaS, Inside Higher EducationAmy L. Ostrom, Mary Jo Bitner, Stephen W. Brown, et al (2010), Moving Forward and Making a
Difference: Research Priorities for the Science of Service. Journal of Service Research 2010 13: 4 Sutcliffe, A. G. (2002). The Domain Theory: Patterns for knowledge and software reuse. Mahwah NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Sutcliffe, A. G., & Lammont, N. (2002). The Planet method for designing relationships in B2B e-
commerce. Proceedings: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii 7-10 January 2002, (pp. 2739-2748). Los Alamitos CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Sutcliffe, A. G., & Lammont, N. (2001). Business and IT requirements for B2B e-commerce. International Journal of New Product Development & Innovation Management (Dec/Jan), 353-370.