William Annandale, Author at Quadrant Consultants

William Annandale September 13, 2019

Degree Apprenticeships represent a win win win

William Annandale

As the collective voice of universities across GB, Universities UK is an influential force in higher education. Their July report – The Future of Degree Apprenticeships – puts forward compelling arguments for the benefits of degree apprenticeships and a series of recommendations to help ensure they are a fundamental part of meeting the significant demand for high-level skills in the economy.

As the report details, backed up by research, degree apprenticeships are viewed positively by employers, universities, and students. The benefits can be summarised for each group.

· Employers, because of the opportunities to address skills shortages, provide structured development for their employees (thereby helping retention), and enhance their recruitment attractiveness

· Universities, because of building stronger relationships with employers, providing incremental opportunities for recruitment and income, and stimulating new approaches to teaching and learning

· Students, because of the additional opportunities for gaining a degree, without the cost, and in some cases also a professional qualification, whilst earning in the workplace

Put it that way, as a win win win, what is there not to support about degree apprenticeships?

The motivations for apprentices were also the subject of research commissioned by the Office for Students (OfS) in June – ‘Degree Apprenticeships Motivations Research’. The top motivating factor for both Level 6 (90 percent) and Level 7 (92 percent) respondents was getting a degree alongside earning a salary.

Quadrant was involved recently in a project for the OfS regarding the issue of the recruitment of mature students to Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health (NMAH) courses. In interviews with employers and NHS trusts, the topic of work based learning was much discussed. The trainee nursing associate programme (TNA) was seen by trusts involved as a particularly positive initiative and although adoption of TNA apprenticeships and nursing degree apprenticeships was uneven, many trusts intended to expand one or both of these and to use them to help address future vacancy levels in NMAH professions.

Some of the issues we encountered regarding apprenticeships, such as the regulatory and financial barriers, and lack of communications about the range of apprenticeships available or in development, were also highlighted in the Universities UK report.

Although we did not see degree apprenticeships as the solution (apart from anything, the NMAH recruitment ‘gap’ is much bigger than could be filled by apprenticeships), there is little doubt that they are particularly appealing for mature ‘students’ because of the work based learning opportunity they provide.

So, back to the Universities UK report and what could/needs to be done. The four main recommendations are worth showing verbatim.

‘Traditional’ degree programmes will still quite rightly be the choice for the majority, particularly younger people and those who do not have a particular vocation in mind. They also have important social, cultural and pastoral benefits.

Degree apprenticeships should be viewed as complementary, with particular relevance for the more mature. They can and should be an important part of the solution for improving the skills of the UK workforce and the productivity of the economy.

Despite some of the barriers, they provide an increasingly good opportunity for many universities to strengthen their ‘applied’ offer and demonstrate their vocational orientation, as well as build valuable relationships with local businesses. Apprenticeships may demand a different approach compared to the traditional degree but work based learning will continue to grow and those who adopt more flexible programmes will be in a strong position to take advantage.

William Annandale February 9, 2017

Winners and Losers – Strategies in Higher Education

The last few years have seen major changes in higher education in the UK; a sector that was more used to quiet evolution previously. The changes can be traced back to the coalition government’s ‘Students at the heart of the system’ white paper in 2011, the enabling of a dramatic increase in undergraduate tuition fees for English universities, up to a maximum of £9,000, in 2012, and the removal of central control on recruitment numbers.

Since then, not the least of the shocks has been Brexit, which is predicted by many to have a major negative impact on universities’ recruitment of EU students, to add to uncertainty about international student recruitment, related to immigration policies.

The dynamics of the sector are now completely different. The outgoing chief executive of UCAS said in her ‘end of cycle’ report in December 2016 ‘When I took over at UCAS in 2010, students chased places – now the places chase them’. Marketisation is a jargon word used, often pejoratively, to describe what is happening in UK HE, and students as consumers. Whatever the terminology, there is no doubt that HE has changed forever.

There is also no doubt that financial pressure is building, on at least some universities. HEFCE’s most recent report, in November last year, on the financial health of the sector suggested ‘a widening gap between the lowest- and highest-performing institutions and increasing volatility of forecasts in the sector’, with forecast surpluses by institution ranging from ‘a deficit of 28.6 per cent to a surplus of 21.5 per cent in 2017-18’.

From a strategic and marketing perspective, what can and should universities be doing as a result of all the changes? Two broad courses of action are suggested.

1: Size and Shape

The removal of the cap on undergraduate UK and EU recruitment numbers has provided a big opportunity for universities but it will only be right for some to take advantage. Expansion clearly comes at a price, in terms of staff and facilities, and brings increased risk at a time of increased uncertainty.

If not already undertaken, universities need a major review of what they want their size and shape to be in the future. Size with regard to overall numbers but also undergraduate versus postgraduate, domestic versus international, directly delivered education versus partnerships etc. Shape includes issues such as breadth of faculties and courses offered, emphasis and investment in research versus teaching, the extent of face to face education as opposed to blended or remote learning, and facilities offered to students.

In the past, most universities have had stated intentions for growth, within the previous student recruitment limitations. Now, consolidation is absolutely a viable option and one that is likely to be more appropriate for some institutions (the UCAS ‘end of cycle’ report indicates that a number of universities are already taking that route).

A consolidation approach also needs to consider breadth. There has been a tendency for universities to try to be all things to all people; hard decisions now need to be made about less reputable faculties or departments and where the focus should be, so that the institution can concentrate on and promote a strong core. This includes a hard look at proposals for new programmes; a HEFCE report from 2012 concluded that only 10% of new undergraduate single subject programmes could be considered successful. With estimated programme development costs at £200m, this suggested that £180m of NPD costs did not achieve a return for institutions.

2: Distinctiveness

Alongside size and shape, distinctiveness is an increasingly important issue for universities to address. How can they genuinely stand out, to target audiences such research funding bodies and industry as well as prospective students, in an increasingly competitive and crowded marketplace?

The typical ‘inside > out’ approach of ‘broadcasting’ (shouting louder) what you think you’re good at will not work unless it’s based on real insights from ‘outside > in’. How is the institution really perceived by the outside world versus its peer group, who are this peer group in reality (not always those assumed), what is being said about it on social media forums for instance regarding student experience, and what is important to those having to make a choice? According to UCAS, almost two thirds of students with some A level grade profiles now get five out of five offers; that’s tough competition even after short listing, and (good) distinctiveness is imperative.

A distinctive position can and should evolve over time but it needs to be established in the first place, and established on the basis of depth of insight, and then communicated in a motivating and appealing way. Many universities are becoming increasingly innovative in their ‘campaigns’, particularly digital; not always, however, grounded in a relevant and appropriate proposition and positioning.

The HE sector has many opportunities and many challenges, and the gap between ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ will inevitably widen, even in the near future. As well as being reactive to changes, universities should be proactive to take charge of their own destinies, and make sure they have the fundamental strategies in place to ensure they end up in the winning camp.

William Annandale October 5, 2016

Planning: Expecting the Unexpected

I had a pleasant surprise on my first day at ‘proper’ work after college (I’d joined Gillette on a graduate entry scheme). We were all given a large pay rise from the graduate offer – in my case, more than 35%; and we were told that our pay would be increased each month in line with inflation.

Yes, you’ve guessed it I started work in the mid 70’s, when inflation was more than 2% a month in the UK. Difficult to credit now, or to imagine that those days can ever come around again. But, it’s very easy to forget the lessons learnt in that period, and to assume that current experience is the norm.

Which leads me on to the point of this blog: how do you get strategists and planners to genuinely think the unthinkable when they are considering the future, and where to go with their business? It’s difficult not to be driven by two main factors when considering the future; extrapolating current trends, or calculating the impact of an impending – but predictable – big event.

At the moment then, many business strategists will be considering where digital technology takes us, and working out the possible impact of Brexit – which, it is clear, is of global significance. These are important – but they don’t fully allow for the consideration of the truly bizarre ‘what if’ scenarios, which may be unlikely but which genuinely can change everything.

The biggest single ‘event’ of my working life was the collapse of the Warsaw Pact in 1989, and the subsequent breakup of the USSR in 1991. The aftershocks of this seismic event will continue for years, and have had profound effects on every organisation we have worked for since that time. My guess is, however, that few organisations outside a select few sectors, such as defence, made any assumptions about the events of 1989 when they produced their strategies and plans in 1988.

Planning, and planning assumptions, always sound like one of the drier parts of business. In fact, they should draw on, and benefit from, the best brains, and seek to equip organisations with the greatest of planning gains – sustainability. We may not be in for another seismic event like 1989 in the next few years, but I hope you’re including in your planning the likelihood and impact of a new leader in North Korea, the end of the Syrian Civil War, and England winning the European Championship! (only kidding about the last one!)