Learn from product development to design HE courses

Many universities are streamlining their programme provision in light of a range of financial challenges. But processes for new course provision or major changes for existing courses are unnecessarily complex and bureaucratic. 

Various forms of risk (to institutional reputation, student experience and academic quality) and subsequent minimisation steps dominate the decision-making process. As a result, course design and development tends to be based on historical evidence, experiential and backward-looking. 

Universities can learn from the business world, specifically product development, to make the course design processes and roles more agile and streamlined so that courses are high quality, with innovation and agility at their core.

View course design through a design thinking lens to foster agility

New product development processes typically embrace design thinking, using rapid iterations, tight feedback loops and continual improvement to drive effective design. In contrast, course approval processes often involve long waits between quality assurance meetings, resulting in slow and fragmented feedback. Internal scrutiny panels can add further delays, with some institutions requiring a course to be defended before an external panel convenes. 

A more useful approach would be to gather rapid, collaborative feedback as a course is developed, so that by the time it reaches external scrutiny, most issues have already been resolved.

A collegiate and collaborative approach to course changes and new course design

Ultimately the end goals for successful courses – providing a quality education, teaching impactful topics and supporting universities – are the same for academics and professional service professionals. Collegiate and collaborative ways of working will support these goals. For example, course design is currently dominated by examination, verification and validation, much of it carried out by university professional services teams. 

A design thinking approach would integrate colleagues across departments into a single design team, enabling greater agility, collaborative and supportive ways of working and earlier awareness of risks and opportunities. These teams would consist of academic course management teams (such as education, programme and course leads) as well as members of professional services teams that usually need to be consulted during the course development process. This can include registry, admissions, education services, quality assurance and enhancement, student experience, library, IT (virtual learning environment team), accommodation and marketing. Operating outside fixed quality assurance cycles would also allow collaborators to discontinue unviable ideas quickly. 

• Spotlight guide: What innovation needs to thrive in higher education
• To save higher education, we must look beyond traditional university models
• Beyond learning design: supporting pedagogical innovation in response to AI

A culture of healthy competition and innovation 

We can’t keep going back to the old ways of doing things just because that is how they have always been done. We need to be able to empower faculty to innovate, and this requires agility and trust. We know this is possible because we saw agile solutions and innovative approaches to teaching during the pandemic. In response to student recruitment and financial challenges, institutions have conducted rapid, streamlined course portfolio reviews when designing teaching provision. At our institution we are moving in this direction with freedom to explore new partnerships and modes of delivery of courses.

Rethinking policies, processes and procedures

Currently, many processes go beyond what is mandatory, and it is essential to distinguish between genuine quality assurance and bureaucratic obstacles to progress. We need to reframe quality assurance as an enabler, not an inhibitor, of innovation. As part of this, we need decision-making processes that create systems of innovation. 

Rapid change is possible – we undertook a portfolio review of MSc-level courses, where several course changes passed through a streamlined and rapid validation and approval process under exceptional circumstances. Such efficiencies could become routine rather than the exception, enabling quicker decision-making while maintaining course quality.

General streamlining of administrative structures could support this. This would involve consolidating overlapping approval committees, creating a single cross-functional design team and introducing fast-track pathways for low-risk changes. It might also be useful to redefine teaching management roles to reflect the needs of a design thinking approach and within quality assurance requirements. For example, programme leadership roles could also be reframed to give clearer authority over iterative improvements supported by hybrid academic-administrative posts that help manage operational burden. Shifting to rolling review windows from fixed annual cycles as well as using shared digital design platforms would enable quicker, more collaborative decision-making.

By becoming more flexible and outward-looking, we can learn from good practice elsewhere. The ability to learn from our and others’ successes and failures can help support the rapid, experimental approach to higher education course design. 

The challenges facing UK universities demand a move from rigid, legacy-driven course processes towards agile, innovation-led approaches. Universities can embrace design thinking principles, streamline approval systems and foster a culture that encourages experimentation and collaboration. The adoption of rapid prototyping, continuous feedback loops and data-driven decision-making around course offerings could help them respond more effectively to volatile student markets and evolving employer needs.

Theresa Mercer is senior lecturer in environmental sustainability and sustainability, and environmental management programme director. Ron Corstanje is professor of environmental data science and head of the Cranfield Environment Centre. Both are based at Cranfield University. The views expressed are the authors’ own.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.