Blogs

Innovation theatre is activity that looks like innovation, but doesn’t create lasting transformation. And it costs the sector a lot, not just in wasted time and resources, but in damaged trust, change fatigue, and missed opportunities for genuine innovation.

We cannot think of AI in terms of efficiency alone. If adoption is transactional, we could lose the qualities that make higher education transformative: empathy, trust, and human connection. The real challenge is not whether to adopt AI, but how to integrate it in ways that amplify the human experience.

The traditional hierarchical structures that have long characterised universities, with their clearly defined boundaries between academic and professional services, their departmental silos, and their established power dynamics, are increasingly proving to be barriers rather than enablers of innovation. Successful HE leadership recognises this reality and actively work to create more permeable, collaborative environments where innovation can flourish.

The future of higher education lies not in eliminating organisational structure, but in making it more permeable, responsive, and human-centred.

The most impactful innovations in higher education share a common foundation: they start with genuine understanding of user experiences rather than predetermined solutions. This shift from assumption-driven to user-centred innovation isn't just good practice—it's becoming essential for universities navigating an increasingly complex landscape of funding pressures, changing demographics, and evolving expectations.

Of late, I find myself increasingly reflecting on the importance of empathy in everything we do. We live in an ever-changing world with ever increasing expectations, opportunities, noise and threat. I keep coming back to the urgent need for empathy to be baked into our service design and delivery, into how we deliver change and into our leadership styles and how, in these times, we need to lean into this as much as possible.

The obsession for benchmarking in higher education is all about what everyone else is doing, and whether we are doing the same.

Change is challenging to navigate for everyone involved, but change also presents opportunities. Ultimately, embracing change is about finding balance between the discomfort it brings and the opportunities it presents.

The process of collating and submitting data regulatory returns is not unlike a Traitors Round Table.

What does it really mean to be in the middle of a university league table?

Understanding the different types can help individuals and organisations leverage these tools effectively.

In the face of an increasing set of challenges, universities must find new ways to innovate and adapt.

Best practice examples of how digital capabilities are deployed across the higher education sector.

Providers are required to collect and submit data on the full range of their activities, and much of this is available as open-source data. Institutions are regulated and held to account on their basis of the data they submit. So why is it so complicated to penetrate? And how can the same data give rise to such difference of opinion? 

Many processes in universities remain localised and manual, and as such, staff may think that wholesale change must be driven by experts. But technological implementation can’t just be made in the back office and ‘rolled out’ when it is already diffused throughout our workplaces and social fabrics: it requires individuals to adapt.  

The sign off date for the first HESA Data Futures (HDF) submission has now passed. What should have been a celebration of a significant milestone in the journey towards in-year data submissions has instead seen institutions limping towards the finish line, dragging their data with them. The regulator has announced the need for an independent review of the processes. So how did we get here, and what can be done?