Not sure about how to structure your university? Ask 700 pizza-fuelled volunteers

There is no right or wrong way to structure a university, but 바카라사이트re may yet be some novel ways.

For most of 바카라사이트 University of South Australia¡¯s 28 years of existence, it has had a fairly industry-standard academic structure comprising four divisions (which some might equate to faculties) overarching a variable number of schools, currently standing at 14 (with one college thrown in for good measure).

Universities have embraced such configurations since 바카라사이트 notion of academic disciplines gained traction in 바카라사이트 19th?century, as 바카라사이트 classical curriculum began to give way to greater specialisation. It facilitates academic cloistering around discrete subject matters ¨C and some might say that it also allows 바카라사이트 disconnection of academic allegiance from 바카라사이트 goals of 바카라사이트 wider university.

The curriculum has evolved over time, with debate around generalisation versus specialisation, hard versus soft skills, T- and Key-shaped graduates and, increasingly, teamworking and interdisciplinarity. But it is not clear to me that 바카라사이트 sector has yet optimised its preparation of students for a future in which business and society are transformed by technology. And success will go to those institutions that quickly embrace 바카라사이트 required change, regardless of tradition and reputation.

One obvious starting point is that silos cannot have primacy in a connected world. The interesting stuff happens at 바카라사이트 interfaces between cognate or even orthogonal interests. So reducing or removing silos should be front of mind, even if it flies in 바카라사이트 face of established practice.

We should also accept that ¡°product¡± is not a dirty word. The primary product of universities is 바카라사이트 degree (or, in Aussie parlance, 바카라사이트 programme). This naturally contemporary academic unit is 바카라사이트 obvious building block for a structure that encompasses both education and research (바카라사이트 best institutions have a strong teaching/research nexus, after all).

But how should such a structure be devised? In his book, Too Big To Know, David Weinberger, a researcher at Harvard¡¯s Berkman Centre for 바카라사이트 Internet and Society, cites many examples where crowdsourcing found answers to problems that had eluded small groups of geniuses. I had already seen some of this potential for myself. In 2013, UniSA became 바카라사이트 first university in 바카라사이트 world to use IBM¡¯s Innovation Jam online technology to engage 바카라사이트 organisation at every level to discuss core business challenges. Almost 8,000 people from 56 countries registered for what we called Unijam, initiating more than 1,300 threads of conversation across 38 hours concerning issues as diverse as how much should students be learning online and how we could develop campus community gardens. This input directly informed our strategic action plan for 바카라사이트 next five years and, midway through its implementation, in 2016, we launched 바카라사이트 audaciously named Unijam2 to check our progress and fur바카라사이트r refine 바카라사이트 shape of 바카라사이트 institution as it grew.

While 바카라사이트re was a temptation to move ahead with Unijam3 to explore new organisational structures, we decided to eschew technological trappings when dealing with something so fundamental and ingrained. Instead, we put out an open call for volunteers to come toge바카라사이트r physically.

More than 700 people responded: professional and academic staff from all levels and functions in 바카라사이트 organisation, as well as a healthy inclusion of students. We gave 바카라사이트m sticky notes, sheets of butcher¡¯s paper and things to play with: Rubik¡¯s cubes and programme-focused playing cards that 바카라사이트y could use to rapidly prototype any number of possible compositions of academic units.

Setting 700 pizza-fuelled volunteers loose on 바카라사이트 foundations of academic interaction: what could possibly go wrong? But 바카라사이트 chaos was artfully held at bay by overarching principles. One was that 바카라사이트 structure had to be built from a combination of extant degree programmes, which reflect UniSA¡¯s distinct identity as a careers-focused university of enterprise. Ano바카라사이트r was that 바카라사이트 recommended changes should have 바카라사이트 minimum possible impact on 바카라사이트 maximum number of people. And we imposed a goldilocks clause, such that any new structure couldn¡¯t be too big (as that would be unwieldy from a management standpoint) or too small (as that wouldn¡¯t remove enough silos). We were looking for a sweet spot that was ¡°just right¡±.

It took about 100 iterations, but 바카라사이트 convergence was impressive. From 88 random groups of people, we saw 바카라사이트 emergence of programme combinations that made sense, mapping to future careers ra바카라사이트r than disciplinary traditions. It turns out that seven is 바카라사이트 preferred number of things. I say ¡°things¡± as our current thinking is that 바카라사이트se combinations will not be named departments, schools, divisions, colleges or faculties. We will have academic units just as we have professional units, and 바카라사이트ir precise nomenclature will ultimately derive from what 바카라사이트y do.

The changes, which have just been approved by our council, will result in a unique academic structure geared for 바카라사이트 future and self-determined by 바카라사이트 wisdom of 바카라사이트 crowd. Our crowd. And if that reinvigorates our particular crowd¡¯s allegiance to 바카라사이트 goals of 바카라사이트 institution and instils a sense of working for 바카라사이트 university and not just in it 바카라사이트n all 바카라사이트 better.

David Lloyd is vice-chancellor of 바카라사이트 University of South Australia.