higher education contributions & implications in economic development: a canadian experience in...
TRANSCRIPT
Higher Education Contributions &Implications in Economic Development:
A Canadian Experience inCollaborative Projects with a Few Countries
GHADA SOUFANManaging Director, ProCare Services
Ho Chi Menh City, December 2009
ProCare ServicesInternational Consulting Firm
• Actively engaged in an emerging Canada-based HE knowledge & resource network.
• Lead role in projects for new universities:-
– Botswana: Framework Design for the Botswana International University of Science & Technology (BIUST)
– Egypt : Feasibility Study, Planning Analysis & Systems Development of the Ahram Canadian University (ACU)
ECONOMIC ADDED VALUEOF UNIVERSITIES
International Student ContributionsResearch ContributionsInvestments Driven by Developing Universities
Financial Contributionby International Students
• International student recruitment actively pursued by OECD countries
– 500,000 students in USA = 14 billion $
• In Canada, 6.5 billion dollars*(this statistic includes elementary, secondary and technical college students and is not limited university as is the US statistic)
Other contributionsby International Students
• International students contribute indirectly:
– Increased presence of highly qualified people and ideas from around the world
– Increased long term connections leading to International business and trade opportunities
International Students inEmerging Economies
• Increasingly more active recruitment of regional students, by offering:
– Better facilities & higher quality standards– Internationally recognized programs & degrees– International links & exposure
• facilitating increased student and graduate mobility for further education &/or work placements abroad
Economic Growth Driven ByUniversity Research
• Emergence of industrial clusters.
• Foster the creation of new businesses and boost productivity.
– through R&D and private sector interactionin the region and abroad.
ExampleIndustrial Research in Canada
• The university sector is the second largest performer of research in Canada.
– Universities performed 36% of R&D,
worth $10.4 billion (2007)
Industrial ResearchCanadian Statistics
In Canada between 1999 and 2003:
– New patent applications from universitiesincreased by 91%
– Spin off companies resulting from university researchincreased by 25%
– New licences awarded to universitiesincreased by 82%
Investments Driven by Developing Universities
– Private Sector Investments:-• Housing• Services including medical• Entertainment and diversions • Light manufacturing
– Public Sector Investments:-• Roads• Communication• Government building
MODELS & PATHS
For universities in emerging economiesto play such a central role in economic development:
University Development Options
• Upgrading Existing Institutions
• Merging Existing Institutions
• Establishing New Institutions– Focus of this presentationFocus of this presentation
Challenge of New Universities
• The choice of many countries
– even those with strong existing universities includingIndia, Viet Nam and Egypt
• The main challenge
– Building credibility– Competition with more established older universities
Advantage of New Universities
• Less constrains of history & inherited traditions = More Potential More Potential
– to look forward not backward– to look outward not inward– to be innovative, adapting rapidly & effectively
to dynamic & emerging conditions
• Provided setting bold, yet realistic goals, while summoning the will to make them all a reality.
NEW INSTITUTIONAL MODELS
Satellite Model Franchise ModelOut-Sourced ModelIntegrated Progressive model
Satellite Model
• New university engages 1 or more other universities to– deliver its/their “home” programming at satellite, as a branch– award foreign credits and degrees to students.
• WEAKNESSES:– The satellite is a stage for a foreign enterprise.– Setbacks upon changing enterprise decisions abroad.
• STRENGTHS: – Relative lower cost & quicker programming launch.– Students receive internationally accredited degrees right away.
Franchise Model
• New university engages 1 or more foreign universities– wholesale import of programs to be delivered by local &/or
regional professors
• WEAKNESSES:– Does not reflect the local context and teaching/research needs.– Does not establish a national institution – weak local ownership.
• STRENGTHS:– Quickly establishes programming.– Resulting university relies on the reputation of the exporter. – May help the new university to quickly establish credibility.
Out-Sourcing Model• New university engages an interim partner
– to design &/or operate university, sharing risks & benefits for a set initial period of time.
• WEAKNESSES:– Risk of profit focus at expense of academic quality.
• qualitative features compromised to increase profitability and expedite return on investment
– Little integration of wider economic considerations• if any occurs, it is often incidental rather than intentional.
• STRENGTHS:– Initial savings in contract management & setup costs.
OUR TRIED MODELAn Integrated Progressive ModelAn Integrated Progressive Model
• relies on building a strong national institution,using Canadian and international best practices.
• promotes collegial two-way cooperationbetween Canadian and national professors and university administrators
• Leads to long term relations & benefits– student & professorial exchanges, joint research, joint
degrees, mutual recognition and other cooperation modes and linkages.
Integrated Progressive Model
STRENGTHS:• Yields a strong national institution
– reflecting “contextualized” international best practices
• Builds long term relationships between institutions– A variety of universities work under coordination of a core team,
providing consistent and consistent output
WEAKNESSES:• Requires relatively more time & effort
to achieve desired results.
• International recognition is not immediate;it is built over time.
MODEL ADAPTABILITY & VIABILITY
Basic & detailed Design ComponentsProgram Integration FeaturesEnrolment Planning As Core Integrating EngineFinancial Planning Integrator
Basic Design Components
• Background Study & Strategic Positioning– contextual global, regional, national and sectoral framework– Branding, Image & Organizational Culture
• Organizational Development– academic & corporate governance & management structures
• Academic Planning– academic program and curricula framework– student management and enrolment planning framework– accreditation and quality assurance framework
• Technical Study– Identifying facility and infrastructure requirements – Identifying staffing requirements and hiring strategies;– Examining cost and revenue elements and factors
• Financial forecasting
Detailed Design Components• Academic /Research Program Development
– Curriculum Plans & Academic /Research Programs Detailing– Courseware Syllabus Design/Review– Student Academic Progress & Evaluation
• Defining Support Systems– Student Administration & Registrar Operations– Knowledge Management (Library & ICT) Services– Career & Work Placement and Advising and Counselling
Services– Human Resources Management– Quality Assurance Strategy, Structures & Systems
• Detailed Strategic & Operational Planning & Budgeting
Program Integration Features• Focus on program integration, for achieving reasonable
critical mass to deliver desired efficiencies
– Horizontally(inter-disciplinary; across faculties and departments)
– Vertically(at under-grad, grad and post-grad levels)
– With a strong “research – teaching” nexus
• In thematic areas of highest potential of strength, derived from national/regional socio-economic development agendas
– coinciding with national and regional prioritiesthat are not yet adequately addressed elsewhere
Core Integrating Engine:Enrolment Modelling
• Links a gradual increase in no. of various studentswith a commensurate gradual increase in
– number of various levels of identified programs
– the required number of facultyto deliver that increasing number of multi-level programs to the increasing number of students
– the required number of support & admin staff
– the required facilities to serve the number of users
Financial Planning Integrator To be both financially & academically viable
Every desired academic & corporate feature of the university gets
• linked to the dynamic enrolment model
• translated into required resources(staff, facilities, costs and time frames)
• examined in terms of expected outcomes and returns(financial and qualitative)
• weighed for impact on optimal investment & student fee levels
