What are effective business cases for different stakeholders?

All projects were directed to the JISC Good Intentions report, which articulated benefits of an open approach to sharing to a range of stakeholders, and several Institutional Strand projects referred to this when prestning their own business cases. Whilst most projects started this process as part of their bid preparation, all put considerable effort throughout the programme into identifying and articulating the benefits of OER release to their instituions and to their staff and students, as well as to a wider global community. Some projects in their final reports, however still argued that the business case for OER was not yet proven. This may reflect how people interpret the term 'business case'. Projects rightly point out that issues around costs are very difficult to 'pin down' and this reflects the facts that there are usually multiple benefits to multiple stakeholders and managers need to prioritse which benefits are most important to the institution, as this affects the models adopted and even the types of resoucres that are openly released.

It was argued in the 'Good intentions' report, and by the Open Exeter project that a focus on benefits rather than costs may prove more useful,

''Attempting to calculate the cost of OER in monetary terms is notoriously difficult to do. It would be useful to have Full Economic Costing estimates regarding the cost of e.g. producing digital material for our institutional VLE. If this is unavailable, it is somewhat meaningless to attempt to calculate what the marginal cost would be on an unknown base cost. A more promising strategy is to focusing on the ‘benefits’ and ensure that the OER agenda is tightly coupled with how the University views itself, i.e. its core values and mission.' OpenExeter Final Report''

In fact, all of the Institutions involved in this strand of the pilot programme immediately recognised the institutional benefits of OER release, and this provided major impetus to strategic level support for project activities. Marketing the institution through showcasing high quality materials was identified by all projects as an important, if not the most important, benefit of OER release. Many saw this as an opportuinty to improve reputation and recruitment, particularly in a global market. Other institutional benefits included cost efficiencies, in terms of reducing duplication and encouraging sharing of generic resources. Projects also identified global altruistic reasons and 'social benefits' of releasing materials for all learners.

All institutional strand projects had to invest significant time and resource into articulating the benefits to individual staff, as early surveys revealed a lack of awareness in general about OERs and also alot of percieved and real barriers. 'Winning hearts and minds' and 'Recognition and reward' became major focus areas for this, and other strands, and generated much cross project discussion and activity.

What are effective business cases for different stakeholders?

What are benefits to global/national communities

Excerpts from project documerntation

BERLiN (University of Nottingham)

• Universities are in the business of creating and disseminating knowledge, and historically that's been done through face-to-face contact and the printed word. The internet has changed all that… U-Now gives us the opportunity to provide an alternative source of access to materials for our own students... and take these resources our inspiring educators produce to a much wider audience, here in the UK and internationally. Professor David Greenaway, Vice Chancellor, The University of Nottingham BERLIN (University of Nottingham)
• OER Africa Partnership Agreement

OCEP (University of Coventry)

• The business case for using OERs is understood in general terms but case studies are needed. The ReProduce programme provided some insight into the benefits and costs of using existing content at a fairly micro level, but some wider understanding is needed.
• Students’ attitudes to the use of OERs in their courses need researching. Some teaching staff are apt to believe that students equate value with using resources which are unique to their courses, something which can only be achieved if the lecturer creates all their own resources.
• The business case for OERs may be in terms of enabling the rapid development of high-quality courses in response to student demand. Such agile product development may be increasingly important in a rapidly changing employment market.
• Using OERs may enable us to concentrate on other aspects of teaching and learning, for example collaborative activities, social learning, learning from peer assessment, making use of the wider range of resources made available by universities and other agencies.
• Can use of OERs reduce dependency on textbooks?

Openspires (University of Oxford)

• staff genuinely felt that release of their content would benefit students around the world.
• 'OpenSpires is communicating the best of Oxford’s scholarship by making audio and video material freely available for global educational use. I'm delighted to support - and to be contributing to - the project, which shares educational resources for the benefit of students around the World.' Professor Jonathan Michie, Director of Continuing Education and President of Kellogg College, Oxford
• '' 'In the late-19th century Oxford was one of the pioneers of the university extension movement, which enabled audiences around the UK to hear what some of its lecturers had to say on a wide range of topics. The OpenSpires project is the 21st-century equivalent, though, with the benefit of the web, the audiences are now global and we hope even more diverse. It is a pleasure to contribute to this important venture, which is opening up Oxford like never before.'

Dr Peter D. McDonald, St Hugh's College, Oxford ''

OTTER (University of Leicester)

• International partnership with the South African Institute for Distance Education (SAIDE) has enabled a more ‘demand-driven’ approach where an audience for certain OERs has been identified and provides a potentially useful opportunity for data gathering about the use and impact of OERs in different cultural contexts in the future

What are benefits to institutions?

What are the benefits to institutional prestige/rankings

Excerpts from project documerntation

OCEP (University of Coventry)

• The university aspires to be known as one which has a strong record of helping its students into graduate jobs
• The university wants to build a strong reputation for curriculum innovation, particularly related to its core aims (employability, sustainability etc)
• The university’s academic work is only sustainable in the longer term if there is greater sharing of resources both internally and externally
• Opening up resources for use by others, particular professional peers, is an important driver towards improving quality of teaching content
• marketing institution through content available through web 2.0 mechanisms aiming to improving evidence base for benefits of open sharing
• OCEP Project final report

OpenExeter (University of Exeter)

• Kudos/PR/”Showcase” for the University
• Reputation
• Marketing
• Public good/charitable action
• Benefits to students
• Resource availability
• Alternative delivery styles may suit different types of learners
• Resources potentially attracting international students
• so many players have become involved and it really has penetrated every aspect of the University
• OER has potential to glue together so many areas of the University for a particular purpose *Its skill has been to link things together – disparate parts for one common goal. Individuals have their own goals but they have needed to see their role in the bigger picture.
• Open Exeter Project Final evaluation report

OPENSTAFFS (Staffordshire University)

• exploring new business models and looking to encourage recruitment and enhance the University's reputation. Other modelsbeing considered include The 'shop window' model, showcasing examples of learning material and the 'Self Learn' model where study materials are offered free of charge, but students pay for assessment and accreditation.
• It is clear that business models associated with OER are in their infancy and whether any institution pursues models based on for example Self Learn and the sale of assessment and accreditation; OER as a reputation builder; or OER as a means of enhancing recruitment via ‘Showcase’ will be highly dependent on any given institutions business strategy. Any local approach to OER will need to be thus aligned.
• showcasing examples of modules and learning material in student recruitment
• Saving staff time and effort by raising awareness of material already on open access (openlearn, youtube.edu)
• OPENSTAFFS Project final report

OTTER (University of Leicester)

• Data gathered from interviews with stakeholders shows that the OTTER OERs are perceived to be of high quality and to portray a positive image of the university.
• We have been unable to gather substantial evidence of impact of the OTTER OERs within the short timeframe of OTTER.
• Webometrics increase in rankings for institutions with oer pilot projects
• Stakeholder views on Open Educational Resources: research report

Unicycle (Leeds Metropolitan University)

• Possible benefits in efficiency by encouraging staff to use OER resources rather than create everything themselves. This may also have longer term teaching and learning quality enhancement benefits. (but the project timeframe limits strong statistical evidence, but some anecdotal evidence through staff conversations is emerging).
• Strategy document
• Unicycle Final Report
• Academic Board discussion paper

What are benefits to academics

Excerpts from project documerntation

BERLIN (University of Nottigham)

• it is a concern for OER development and release generally that there are relatively few ways of rewarding excellence in teaching when contrasted with the numerous rewards available to excellent researchers. Including biographical data within published OER materials could help enhance reputations of content providers; even so, concerns were raised that contributing academics could well gain an international teaching reputation yet still fall behind in their research field – a situation that is not unique to Nottingham. Linking institutional funding to open learning publication may help encourage widespread adoption across HE.
• The workshop will be made available as a qualifying workshop towards the Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education (PGCHE), enabling new lecturers to understand the importance of finding and attributing web-based materials correctly and providing a wealth of content to avoid duplication when designing a module. This is one of several examples of a cultural shift in the institution brought about by the project.
• 67% of respondents saw OER as a fruitful way of building partnerships with other colleagues and institutions worldwide, with enhancing the University‘s reputation and attracting better students being cited as a potential benefit by 57% of the respondents. However, 51% were neutral towards OER attracting better academic staff, with a further 54% believing publishing OER would have no impact on their personal promotion prospects.
• Time constraints (65%), fear over copyright infringement (58%) and ownership and legal barriers (43%) were cited as the three main barriers for publishing OER; whilst awareness of OER repositories (55%), relevancy of materials (40%) and time constraints (26%) were the three main barriers cited against using OER.

OCEP (University of Coventry)

• Academic staff want their contributions to learning and teaching recognised by the university and externally in the same way as, for example, research outputs; this means making them open
• OCEP Project final report

OpenExeter (University of Exeter)

• “Showcase” for staff and Colleges with a potentially enhanced reputation
• Potential to share cutting edge research
• Be ahead of publications
• Improve teaching and learning
• Benefits to staff in sharing resources
• LTHE
• Potentially reduce course development time
• Increase staff awareness of copyright
• many staff currently use resources regarded as OER, but not necessarily the formal repositories set up by institutions, but few are involved in the production of them for the University of Exeter. It was generally felt that the production of OER would not have an impact on one’s career at Exeter unless current policies changed. This related to a general view that the University would need to decide how important OER are on the agenda and why marketing or as educational resources in a changing IT world) and will they support staff time with rewards. Many staff could not see the benefits for the University apart from marketing and believed that it should be “just a few show case materials for each College done by the stars of the academic world” which would promote the University and individuals, provide marketing and publicity, keep costs to a minimum, keep time commitments to a minimum for staff and enable careful consideration of copyright issues.
• internal blog to encourage frank open discussion with academic teams – fed into reports
• Open Exeter Project Final evaluation report

Openspires (University of Oxford)

• Sigfnificant recocnition on the press and significant levels of use of fairly granular materials (videos/podcasts)

OpenStaffs (Staffordshire University)

• focus groups and interview – scheduled March 2010. Focus group 1 : academic staff, focus group 2: support staff in Information Services and LD
• OpenStaffs- Interviews with a sample of contributors when material is available in JorumOpen and they can see their modules repackaged from Blackboard and presented for open access

OTTER (University of Leicester)

• has found that academics have responded positively to the promise of receiving their materials back in enhanced format, and that this could be a significant factor in motivating individuals to contribute materials for publication as OERs.
• Internal dissemination event and materials to encourage participation
• CARPE Deum workshops
• Stakeholder views on Open Educational Resources: research report
• ‘Reward and recognition of academic staff are seen as key factors in successfully promoting the generation of OERs. However, non-financial reward is much preferred to financial reward. (from above report)’

Unicycle (Leeds Metropolitan University)

• highlighted in institutional staff devt festival, and 4 staff devt workshops and materials, and RLO CETL event at Leeds with outputs made open.
• legitimising the use of other peoples material in their teaching and learning.
• Poll relating to image use
• IPR workshop survey responses
• Small staff survey

What benefits could HE and wider society expect to see from open educational resource release?

OTTER (University of Leicester)

• Developing FAQs with specific examples of the wider benefits of OER.

What particular benefits do subject communities, institutional communities and other communities receive?

Excerpts from project documerntation

OpenSpires (University of Oxford)

• Material needs to be placed as near as possible to the subject communities to drive reuse.

OCEP (University of Coventry)

• OCEP Project final report
• What are the costs of OER release and who typically has to bear them? Are the benefits perceived as being worth the costs?

OpenSTAFFS (Staffordshire University)

• It is clear that the true cost benefit of OER release is not yet fully understood and is likely not to be so until associated new business models are more fully realised.
• Continued release of resources will require a review of roles and responsibilities among existing staff in Information Services. It is highly unlikely that material created and presented in Blackboard will receive the additional attention required for open access without the appointment of a repository manager.

OpenExeter (University of Exeter)

• Funding issues
• Technology and resources
• Staff time
• Support staff
• Attempting to calculate the cost of OER in monetary terms is notoriously difficult to do. It would be useful to have Full Economic Costing estimates regarding the cost of e.g. producing digital material for our institutional VLE. If this is unavailable, it is somewhat meaningless to attempt to calculate what the marginal cost would be on an unknown base cost. A more promising strategy is to focusing on the ‘benefits’ and ensure that the OER agenda is tightly coupled with how the University views itself, i.e. its core values and mission.
• Argue the case of the cost of not engaging! It is unlikely that any costing model will really swing an argument, though they may be used by those who already have made up their minds.
• Open Exeter Project Final evaluation report

Openspires (University of Oxford)

• cost effective model – individual lectures requiring mininum academic support time and utilised existing popular open outreach channels – uni portal and iTunesU
• The editing process in its entirety created a significant demand on staff time; audio editing generally taking twice as long as the length of recording, whereas video was 4-10 times the length of recording. Producing audio podcasts is therefore much more cost efficient
• Outsourced transcripting to commercial firm.

Unicyle (Leeds Metropolitan University)

• project has sought to develop a sustainable cost model which integrates within existing systems and processes.
• OER costs include repository infrastructure, staff development time, faculty liaison allocation.
• Cost implications for Faculties are that a named person be assigned co-ordinator for the Faculty with approximately 1 day per fortnight allocation for this task. (Preferably at Principal Lecturer level).
• Also that a repository officer be made a permanent position for the management of the repository system.
• All of these positions have been part funded by the project, (0.4 for repository manger & 0.2 for the co-ordinators) with a longer term view that costs will now be absorbed by central services and Faculties.
• Unicycle Final Report