The Role of Stakeholders in Quality Assurance in ODL Ari-Matti Auvinen Researcher Aalto University Finland Michael A. Mariasingam Independent Consultant Quality Learning Global Consultancy
USA
Introduction
The widening use of ODL (open and distance learning) has highlighted the importance of quality
assurance. Quality approach is elementary in the continuous development of various ODL, andquality is
also becoming an important factor of competitive advantage between the various ODL programs. Quality work has been often consideredasan internal function within ODL by providers. However, we claim the ODL providers should get their key stakeholders involved in their Quality Assurance work because the needs of all stakeholders must be met for quality and also the ODL providers would benefit if they would involve their key stakeholders as fundamental actors in their quality assurance work. This requires not only appropriate identification of the various stakeholders, but also active continuous stakeholder management.
Stakeholders as a Resource for Quality Work
Quality in education is the key to support innovation; creativity and excellence (see e.g. Ehlers & Schneckenberg, 2010). Enhanced quality, increased openness and transparency are strong driving forces behind competition and collaboration in education and research (Anderson, 2011; Ossiannilsson & Creelman, A., 2012). An essential element in quality work is continuous dialogue between all key players. However, the quality assurance approach of educational institutions has been largely built on internal quality work and quality control, which has been assisted by external quality assessors and national quality assurance authorities and agencies (Ossiannilsson & Creelman, 2012).
The importance of stakeholders and their involvement has been discussed in the context of higher education, and in this discussion the stakeholders have been linked with the discourse on quality and quality management (Eagle & Brennan, 2007; Houston, 2008; Simmons & Lovegrove, 2005; Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2003). However, researchers see little evidence that the views and perspectives of the stakeholders have been given any significant consideration in the planning and implementation of higher education (Birnbaum, 2000; Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2003). However, the involvement of various stakeholders in quality work provides the ODL providers with novel resources for their quality work. In addition, it can also strengthen the ties between ODL providers and stakeholders.Thework with the stakeholders requires understanding of the various stakeholders, their roles and their stakes.
Stakeholder Analysis as a Working Method
The classical and most used definition of a stakeholder, according to Freeman (1984), is “an organization…[or] any group or individual who can affect or be affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives”. Although Freeman’s groundbreaking book “Strategic Management: A
Stakeholder Approach” in 1984 started the wider discussion and elaboration of stakeholders and their importance, an earlier stakeholder concept had already emerged in the 1960s.
“Stakeholder analysis” is not just one clearly defined analysis technique, rather it includes an array of various techniques. Appropriate stakeholder analysis is the cornerstone of stakeholder management. Bryson (2004) has identified and presented fifteen stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Utilization of the stakeholders in the quality assurance work requires, in our experience, the following steps:
identification of important stakeholders
mapping and assessing of stakeholder positions and views
undertaking a diagnosis of stakeholder positions and views
presenting key positions and views in regard to the ODL provision (see e.g. Bryson, 2004; Bryson, 2005; Varvasovszky & Brugha 2000).
Effective stakeholder management starts with stakeholder identification. In the identification of important stakeholders, the key issue is to identify and analyze the different people or groups (i.e., the “stakeholders”) that would be potentially affected by the outcomes of the proposed activities. In the stakeholder literature, the definition of the “wide sense of stakeholders” and the “narrow sense of stakeholders” is an essential element (see e.g. Freeman & Reed, 1983; Mitchell, Agle, &Wood, 1997). The former refers to any identifiable group or individual who can affect the achievement of an
organization’s objectives or who is affected by the achievement of an organization’s objectives and the latter refers to any identifiable group or individual on whom the organizations is dependent for its
continued survival (Freeman & Reed, 1983). In the case of ODL provision, the wide sense of stakeholders should be applied, and thus the stakeholders should be defined as all those who have a legitimate interest (either direct or indirect) in the ODL activities.
After the identification of the stakeholders, it is necessary to classify the stakeholders as either primary or secondary (see e.g. Bryson, 2004; Bryson, 2005; Clarkson, 1995). The primary stakeholder groups are ones without whose continuing participation and support an organization cannot survive as a going concern. The secondary stakeholder groups are those who are still important, but whose positions or activities are not essential for the survival of an organization (see e.g. Clarkson, 1995).
After the identification and classification of the stakeholders, the next stage is to analyze the positions and views of the stakeholders and thus to construct a map of their “relative importance . This stage provides the basis for the analysis of the dynamics of the stakeholders. The literature of stakeholder analysis and management includes a variety of ways of classifying the stakeholders. Mitchell, Agle, & Wood classify the stakeholders according to power, legitimacy and urgency (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997) while Bryson classifies them according to the issue position and importance (Bryson 2005). Bryson’s matrix of “power / interest” is often used, and has been initially presented by Johnson and Scholes (Johnson & Scholes, 1999). For ODL purposes, we propose the use of the power / interest matrix, as it provides a comprehensive tool to present positions of the stakeholders.
And finally, it is also important to document and summarize the views of the stakeholders and propose clear actions based on the views by the stakeholders.
Identification of Stakeholders
As mentioned earlier, effective stakeholder management starts with stakeholder identification – i.e. who are an organization’s relevant stakeholders (Preble, 2005). Stakeholder analysis has its basis in
management and marketing research. Marketing literature has typically focused only on two stakeholder groups – namely the consumers and competitors. The stakeholder view also underlines the importance of
continuous interaction with the various stakeholders. Active work with the stakeholders is seen as a method to reduce uncertainty of the operating environment by identifying and following important players and critical dependencies (see e.g. Yläranta, 2006). In particular, it is important also to understand the mutual dependencies and “co-destinies” of the various players.
In ODL work, as in learning in general, the individual learner must be placed at the centre of the stakeholder analysis, as opposed to conventional stakeholder analyses, which position the company / organization as the core element. Although not common in stakeholder methodology, there are examples in research literature which place the actual users and customers in the centre of the stakeholder analysis (e.g. see the case of Novo Nordisk in their diabetes drug development presented by Freeman &Harrison &Wicks, 2007).
In the classification of stakeholders, we classify the key stakeholders as internal stakeholders (in ODL, learners, co-learners, teachers, supporters, educational institutions and other ODL providers); interface stakeholders (in ODL, various quality assurance networks and quality agencies); and external
stakeholders (in ODL, governments, employers, trade unions, funding agencies, technology providers etc.). However, our fundamental approach is that learners are the most important stakeholders in ODL and thus their involvement in any quality work is essential.
Based on the work undertaken within the European QUAL-C project, the stakeholders of ODL can be seen as follows (see picture 1) (based on Auvinen et al, 2010).
Assessing the power and interest of the stakeholders
After identifying the essential stakeholders, the next logical stage is to assess the impact of the actions and views of the different stakeholders. The useful tool for this work is the power / interest matrix. In the power / interest matrix there are two important questions to be asked to assess the impact of the views of the stakeholder. The question “If we were to pursue this strategy with disregard to the views of this particular stakeholder, could/would they stop it?” assesses the power of the stakeholder. The interests of the stakeholder is assessed with the questions “How high is this approach on their priorities?” and “Are they likely to actively support or oppose this approach, or will their interest be short-lived?“ (Johnson & Scholes, 1999).
The results of the stakeholder analysis should be presented in the power / interest matrix – this can also be linked with the necessary strategies according to the various stakeholder groups (see picture 2).
Picture 2
The classification of the identified stakeholders according to their power and interest provides a useful tool for the ODL providers, as the relative importance and power of the various stakeholders are not equal. In the quality work of ODL, in particular, it is important to identify those actors, who have both interest (as quality is about dialogue and involvement) as well as power and influence.
Regarding this power/interest matrix, it is interesting to discuss the position of learners. As the final beneficiaries of a working quality assurance system, they should play a crucial role also in determining the quality of a learning experience and learning provision. However, not all learners are able to
participate to such a quality discourse. There is a need to improve “quality literacy” amongst learners in order to make them able to choose the provision which suits their needs better and to enable them to engage in dialogue with the learning providers before, during, and after the learning (see also Eagle & Brennan, 2007).
Conclusions
The success of new developments and initiatives in the quality assurance of ODL requires the acceptance and support of many different stakeholders. The first step in building the basis for successful
improvement of learning is to understand who the stakeholders are, what their preferences are and what their relative power and interest is.
References
Anderson, T. (2011) (Ed). The theory and practice of online learning. Edmonton, Canada: AU Press. Auvinen, A.M., Waddington, L., Moretti, M., Dondi, C., Fischer, T., Kretschmer, T., Jonsson, D.,
Larsson, S.O., & Wiik, S. (2010). Understanding the stakeholders. A key to the successful implementation of adult learning projects. eLearning Papers 2010 – Special edition
Birnbaum, R. (2000). The Life Cycle of Academic Management Fads. The Journal of Higher Education.
71, 1-16.
Bryson, J.M. (2004). What to Do When Stakeholders Matter. Public Management Review. 6, 21-53.
Bryson, J.M. (2005). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A Guide to
Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement. Third Edition. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review. 20, 92-117.
Eagle, L., & Brennan, R. (2007). Are students customers? TQM and marketing perspectives. Quality
Assurance in Education 15, 44-60.
Ehlers, U.D., & Schneckenberg, D. (2010) Introduction: Changing cultures in higher education. In Ehlers, U.D. - Schneckenberg. D. (Eds), Changing cultures in higher education Berlin. Springer, (pp.
1-14).
Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D.L. (1983). Stockholders and Stakeholders: A New Perspective on Corporate Governance. California Management Review 25, 88-105.
Freeman, R. E. (1984).Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman Publishing 1984.
Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., & Wicks, A.C. (2007), Managing for Stakeholders. Yale University Press.
Houston, D. (2008). Rethinking quality and improvement in higher education. Quality Assurance in
Education. 16, 61-79.
Johnson, G., & Scholes, K. (1999). Exploring Corporate Strategy, 5th Edition. Prentice Hall.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R., &Wood, D.J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience. Academy of Management Review. 22, 853-886.
Ossiannilsson, E., & Creelman, A. (2012). From proprietary to personalized higher education – how OER takes universities outside the comfort zone. Journal of e-Learning and knowledge Society. 8,
9-22.
Preble, J.F. (2005). Toward a Comprehensive Model of Stakeholder Management. Business and Society
Review 110, 407-431.
Simmons, J., & Lovegrove, I. (2005). Bridging the conceptual divide: lessons from stakeholder analysis.
Journal of Organizational Change Management. 18, 295-513.
Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J. (2003). Developing alternative perspectives for quality in higher education.The International Journal of Educational Management 17, 126-136.
Varvasovszky, Z., & Brugha, R.(2000). How to do (or not to do)… A Stakeholder analysis. Health Policy
and Planning. 15, 338 – 345.
Yläranta, M. (2006). Between Two Worlds – Stakeholder Management in a Knowledge Intensive Governmental Organisation. Publications of the Turku School of Economics, Series A-7:2006.
About the Presenters
Ari-Matti Auvinen (Researcher, Aalto University) is a widely known expert in distance education and
eLearning. His M.A. degree is from the University of Helsinki and his M.B.A. degree is from the Helsinki University of Technology. He has a long experience as a consultant and trainer (in HCI Productions Oy and Human Capital Investment Oy), including assignments in Finland, Europe and USA for higher education institutions and companies, and also European Commission, World Bank and UN
organizations. He works also as the Chair of the Network of Academics and Professionals of EDEN (European Distance and E-Learning Network) and as the Board member of the Finnish eLearning Centre. In the past, he has served as a member of the Board of Directors of EFQUEL (European Foundation for Quality in eLearning) and as the Chair of the Finnish Association for Distance Education.
Address: Aalto University / Aalto School of Science
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management PO Box 15500
FI - 00076 Aalto FINLAND
E-mail: ama.auvinen@aalto.fi Phone: 358-40-512-5725
Michael A. Mariasingam is an independent consultant in quality assurance with Quality Learning
Global Consultancy www.qualitylearningglobal.com. Dr. Mariasingam has developed a comprehensive set of quality standards in terms of rigorous measurable benchmarks for assessment and assurance of the quality of online programs. He has published a book and papers on quality in online programs and on systematic guidelines and procedures for developing and delivering high quality online programs. Currently he is writing three books on Quality Assurance in Online Learning. Dr. Mariasingamhas organized and facilitated several interactive hands-on workshops on designing, developing and delivering high quality online programs and on quality assessment and assurance of online programs.
Address: Quality Learning Global Consultancy E-mail: michaelmariasingam@yahoo.com Phone: 216-965-7035
