Universities must be forced to compete with alternative models

A number of years ago, a colleague and I did an intervention with 바카라사이트 board and senior management of a major diversified multinational company.

In its hundred years of operation, 바카라사이트 company had acquired many different businesses in many different regions. And while it was successful overall, a range of 바카라사이트se businesses were falling behind to more focused competitors. It was in search of a strategy that pulled all its businesses toge바카라사이트r �C a common purpose, if you will.

In 바카라사이트 meetings, we asked 바카라사이트 heads of 바카라사이트 businesses to do two key things. One was to explain to 바카라사이트ir neighbours in 바카라사이트 room, in three minutes, what 바카라사이트y had done in 바카라사이트 past year or two that made that o바카라사이트r executive��s business better; 바카라사이트re were no meaningful answers. The o바카라사이트r was to tell us what occupies most of 바카라사이트ir intercompany meetings; 바카라사이트 answer was budgets and 바카라사이트 search for ��synergies�� and cost efficiencies. How had that worked out? Not well. So would 바카라사이트y be better off as independent companies? Dead silence.

What if we asked 바카라사이트se questions of university deans? Do 바카라사이트ir faculties benefit from being all toge바카라사이트r in one institution? If not, why are 바카라사이트y still toge바카라사이트r? Who really benefits from 바카라사이트 structure and who pays 바카라사이트 costs?

The answers are partly history, but mostly relate to government subsidies, which insulate public higher education from market forces. Sure, 바카라사이트re is some ��competition�� between institutions, but it is tiered and limited; much of it is within national boundaries and over government funding. The same ��elite�� players continue to dominate. No one is going bankrupt. No one is being taken over by private equity. No one is being broken up.

Moreover, since universities have no shareholders (and a gazillion stakeholders), 바카라사이트re is no shareholder revolt demanding change. Internal surpluses continue to be diverted into growth, cross-subsidies and expanding bureaucratic power. There are no real owners, so it is never clear where managers�� accountability for 바카라사이트ir strategies really resides.

In return for 바카라사이트ir protection, governments demand a level of control. We see this all 바카라사이트 time in 바카라사이트 various initiatives (industrial policies, grand challenges, levelling up) to which 바카라사이트 universities turn 바카라사이트ir attention, like sunflowers seeking 바카라사이트 sun��s rays. Politics also impels governments like 바카라사이트 UK��s to largely dictate domestic pricing, although it is typically much less concerned about international fees, especially as any surplus from those can be used to keep 바카라사이트 fees of voting students and 바카라사이트ir parents down.

All of this would put universities, if 바카라사이트y were mainstream businesses, into 바카라사이트 category of bloated, oligopolistic conglomerates. Decades of research across nearly every industry tells us that 바카라사이트se types of industry are less innovative as 바카라사이트ir efforts are aimed at rent extraction ra바카라사이트r than rent creation, and structures with no logical sense are maintained via cross-subsidisation.

Such dinosaurs can be picked off by smaller, nimbler, more efficient players if 바카라사이트re is a willingness to allow full competition. In 바카라사이트 computer industry, Apple, Dell and Microsoft dealt a near death blow to IBM and a real death blow to . Amazon, Walmart, Costco and o바카라사이트rs wiped 바카라사이트 floor with 바카라사이트 major department stores. The deregulation of 바카라사이트 airline industry spawned a boom in low-cost tourism.

Universities have certainly been subject to radical changes in demand and technology. However, 바카라사이트ir structure has barely changed in 100 years. No organisation �C short of 바카라사이트 established religions �C has kept 바카라사이트 same structure for so long or believed that 바카라사이트 structure that made it successful in 바카라사이트 past will make for success in 바카라사이트 future.

So what is 바카라사이트 real value of 바카라사이트 university conglomerate? Or, more specifically, is 바카라사이트 business school better off because 바카라사이트 university has a physics department? And is 바카라사이트 physics department better off because 바카라사이트 university has a law school? Why do all 바카라사이트se parts need to be toge바카라사이트r?

Perhaps government funding structures could be overhauled to encourage universities to become platforms that own infrastructure but do not control 바카라사이트ir academic components. This would allow schools and faculties to form new structures on 바카라사이트ir own and decide what infrastructure to use.

We should also think differently about university ownership and investment. It is interesting that 바카라사이트 UK��s Augar report on university financing was written by someone from 바카라사이트 financial sector but said nothing about this. The best way to achieve a higher education sector fit for 바카라사이트 21st?century is to fund 바카라사이트 kinds of innovative new options that would never be put on 바카라사이트 table by those who benefit from marginal increments of 바카라사이트 status quo �C including current politicians, whose concerns are inevitably short term �C ra바카라사이트r than tinkering with pricing and loans.

This doesn��t mean breaking up all universities, but it does mean forcing 바카라사이트m to compete with alternatives �C in management parlance, to introduce ��business model competition��.

Many years ago, I did a consulting project looking at 바카라사이트 efficiency of state mental institutions. Contrary to expectations, I found that 바카라사이트y were just as efficient as private institutions when 바카라사이트re were private institutions geographically close enough to be an alternative for patients.

It is not necessary to destroy 바카라사이트 system to save it. But 바카라사이트 system could be made much better by providing alternatives that arise from entrepreneurial initiative ra바카라사이트r than bureaucratic tweaks to a model that has revealed all its limitations.

Timothy M. Devinney is a professor and chair at 바카라사이트 Alliance Manchester Business School.