Consultation questions

Jump to: navigation, search

Feedback from Mark Nichols (posted with permission)

Apologies for not placing this in the wiki – seems my email account lacks the requisite permission!

I just wanted to comment on the goals, making the point that they are very internal, and almost introverted. An overarching goal, perhaps best made explicit, is for the OERu to be perceived as a recognised, credible, and innovative provider of quality education. This is actually an important part in the second consultation question; not being perceived in this way by potential learners and partners is a significant risk.

It could be that the second goal is misnamed. Objectives 1 and 2 of the second goal would do much to enhance the perception of OERu, so the goal might be better termed “Develop processes for OERu operations that underpin academic quality at scale”, or something like that.

Mackiwg (talk)22:29, 21 May 2014

Hi Mark,

As always - well-founded feedback. Thanks for that.

Yes, you need to create an account in the wiki to have editing permissions. (This is needed for legal attribution reasons for the Creative Commons licenses used on the site.)

Indeed, the strategic goals do have an "internal" focus, and in part reflects the current phase of OERu implementation.

I agree entirely with your overarching goal for the OERu to be "recognised as a credible and innovative provider of quality education". This goal is enshrined in the logic model - quality assurance and institutional accredition are the cornerstones of the OERu. Since the 1st meeting of founding anchor partners - being a quality provider was emphasised as a guiding principle for the network.

A key aim of the strategic planning consultation is to develop an integrated set of documents and I would suggest that we incorporate your overarching goal into the vision and mission statements of the OERu strategic plan.


  1. Suggested refinement of Strategic Goal #2: "Develop processes for OERu operations that underpin academic quality at scale" (See also comment by Marc Singer regarding replacement of "cost-effective" with "efficient".
Mackiwg (talk)22:46, 21 May 2014