Debating 'The Innovative University'

August 7, 2011

The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out by Clayton M. Christensen and Henry J. Eyring

The Innovative University is the book that our community has been waiting for. Perhaps no idea has captivated the imagination of change agents within higher ed to the same degree as Christensen's theory of "disruptive innovation." His central observation is that seemingly invulnerable incumbents are displaced not by evolutionary better technologies, what Christensen calls "sustaining innovations," but by cheaper and simpler technologies that are initially of lower quality. Over time, the simpler and cheaper technology improves to a point that it displaces the incumbent. Large companies are designed to produce sustaining innovations, and can seldom introduce the disruptive innovations that will result in lower profits and service levels in the short-to-medium term.

According to Christensen and Eyring, online learning is a classic disruptive innovation. Initially of lower quality than traditional face-to-face courses, the quality of online learning has progressed to a point where its cost advantages (both in fixed and opportunity costs) are set to disrupt the incumbent providers of higher ed. Institutions that figure out how to lower costs while increasing access and quality, through a combination of blended and online learning and a focus on student needs, will replace colleges and universities that fail to embrace the new technology and/or do not re-organize around the demands of non-traditional, adult and digitally savvy learners.

The Innovative University builds its case for the coming disruption of higher ed, one in which "consumers" (students) have far greater educational choice, through a close examination of the evolution of both Harvard and BYU-Idaho. The authors' goal is demonstrate how the Harvard model rose to pre-eminence, and why this model makes a poor choice for emulation. Harvard and a few other wealthy institutions of higher learning can afford to bundle discovery research (in every subject) with teaching (in every major). For schools lacking billion dollar endowments, the design of BYU-Idaho, with its emphasis on teaching and learning and its aggressive use of blended and online learning, may be a better model.

I'm hoping that our IHE community will take the time to read and discuss The Innovative University. We may disagree with some of the points raised by Christensen and Eyring, (for instance, I think they do not give enough attention to how blended learning can transform traditional institutions), but the book provides a common language and a framework to engage in a debate about the future of higher ed.

Can we lower costs and increase quality, or are these goals mutually exclusive?

Can only schools like BYU-Idaho, which enjoy an organizational structure and institutional culture that enable both large-scale change and minimize the ability of stakeholders to dissent, make the changes necessary to "disrupt themselves"?

What is the best method to get this book in the hands of your community, and to then engage in meaningful and goal oriented campus discussions around its conclusions?

What are you reading?


Be the first to know.
Get our free daily newsletter.


Back to Top