The UWI Open Campus Case Study

ANOTHER TRIUMPH: THE UWI OPEN CAMPUS
SUCCESSFULLY EXECUTES CND 32M SDEC PROJECT

CASE STUDY
Opening Doors to Life Changing Learning

Purchase Order number: 7059538
Project number: A034764
Vendor Code: 1014022

The Open Campus “is the ideal vehicle by which The UWI
can open doors to life changing learning wherever a student
is located geographically or academically. Whatever the
potential needs, the Open Campus is well suited to respond
online, onsite and on demand….As a 10-year old Campus,
we are committed to the ideals of self-assessment and public
accountability. Pro Vice Chancellor and Principal, Dr. Luz M.
Longsworth (Open Campus Institutional Re-accreditation Report,
December 2018: xxxiv).
“We support wholeheartedly the Open Campus as our
vehicle to the future. The Open Campus is the one that will
bring equity to the region, justice to the most remote
communities, justice to persons who as youth could not
participate in higher education but who, as adults would
wish to circle and return, to build their own futures and to have that life
changing experience.” Vice Chancellor of The UWI, Professor Sir Hilary
Beckles (Open Campus Council Meeting, Starfish Jolly Beach Resort,
Antigua and Barbuda, March 27, 2018).

2|Page “Opening Doors to Life Changing Learning.”

Vision: An excellent global university rooted in the Caribbean.

Mission: To advance learning, create knowledge and foster innovation for the positive
transformation of the Caribbean and the wider world.

Guiding Principles of The UWI Open Campus: The Open Campus of the University of the West
Indies is based on the idea that the high-quality university education, research and services
available at our institution should be open and available to all people who wish to reach their full
potential inside and outside of the Caribbean region.
The UWI Open Campus adopts quality teaching and learning experiences, innovative pedagogic
design, relevant research and community partnerships to deliver face-to-face, blended and online
learning to all of its communities (Marketing and Communications Unit, 2008 cited in UWIOC
Self- Study Report1 2018: iii).

The UWI Core Values: The core values of The UWI that guide its mandate, policy and decision-
making include integrity, excellence, gender justice, diversity and student centredness.

Attributes of the ideal UWI graduate: A critical and creative thinker; an effective communicator
with good interpersonal skills; IT-skilled and information literate; innovative and entrepreneurial;
globally aware and well-grounded in his/her regional identity; socially, culturally and
environmentally responsible; guided by strong ethical values.

1 The self-study report is subsequently referred to as OCSSR.

3|Page “Opening Doors to Life Changing Learning.”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF TABLES.................................................................................................................................. 7
TABLE OF FIGURES................................................................................................................................ 7
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ 8
GLOSSARY OF TERMS......................................................................................................................... 12
KEY MEASURES OF OPEN CAMPUS PROGRESS.......................................................................... 14
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 19

Demonstrating Capacity....................................................................................................................... 21
Historical Background.......................................................................................................................... 21
In the Beginning… ................................................................................................................................ 22
Increasing Competition ........................................................................................................................ 24
Multi-modal Delivery System .............................................................................................................. 24
Dynamic Change Agent........................................................................................................................ 25
Canada Commits to Caribbean Regional Development – SDEC Benefits ...................................... 25
Baseline Study Report .......................................................................................................................... 26
Open Campus Sites and Centres ......................................................................................................... 26
Grade Point Average ............................................................................................................................ 26
Graduation Statistics ............................................................................................................................ 27
New and Revised Programmes ............................................................................................................ 31
Online Tutoring and Continual Staff Development........................................................................... 31
Human Resource Department /Staff Complement/Divisions, Roles and Functions ....................... 31
Staff Complement and Divisions ......................................................................................................... 31
Programme Delivery Staff ................................................................................................................... 33
Differently-abled students .................................................................................................................... 34
Student Governance and Alumni Association.................................................................................... 34
Strategic Direction – Environmental Scanning and Forecasting ..................................................... 34
Quality Assurance Management & the Accreditation Process......................................................... 35
Financing for Sustainability................................................................................................................. 36
Project Funding..................................................................................................................................... 37
Funding from Tuition Fees and Consolidated Resources ................................................................. 37
Sound Financial Policies and Capacity to Sustain Programme Offers............................................ 38
Procurement Policy............................................................................................................................... 38
Financial Reporting and Audit Arrangements .................................................................................. 39

4|Page “Opening Doors to Life Changing Learning.”

External Auditing.................................................................................................................................. 39
Refund Policy ........................................................................................................................................ 40
Gift Acceptance Policy and Procedures .............................................................................................. 40
Task Force: Strategic Review of the Open Campus .......................................................................... 40
The Open Campus: Giving Leadership to the Digital Transformation of The UWI ..................... 40
Governance Structure: The UWI/Open Campus/SDEC Project ..................................................... 41
A University for All............................................................................................................................... 41
Conceptualising the Unsolicited Project Proposal ............................................................................. 41
CHAPTER 2: HONING THE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES FOR SYNERGY .................................... 42
Strategic Review of SDEC’s Aims and Objectives............................................................................. 42
Transparency & Accountability in the SDEC Communication System .......................................... 46

The Project Manager as Active Participant ................................................................................... 48
Operationalising the Contribution Agreement: Developing the PIP and other M&E Tools......... 49
Integrating the Cross-cutting Theme of Gender Equality ................................................................ 51
Integrating the Cross-cutting Theme of Environmental Sustainability........................................... 52
Building Relationships with the Mass Media ..................................................................................... 53
Launching the Project .......................................................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER 3: OUTCOMES ON THE SIXTEEN PROJECT OUTPUTS .......................................... 56
Data Sources for Determining Outputs and Outcomes Achieved .................................................... 56
Strategic Planning Advances Transformation & Sustainable Development................................... 70
The UWI/Open Campus’ Monitoring Progress on the Strategic Plan/Initiatives........................... 73
Promoting the Strategic Plan ............................................................................................................... 74
Publishing the Strategic Plan: Marketing & Communication Department/UWItv........................ 75
Staff Accountability for the Strategic Plan......................................................................................... 75
Diversifying Funding Sources.............................................................................................................. 76
The Business Development Unit .......................................................................................................... 77
Programme Advisory Committees – Structure and Function .......................................................... 81
Common Core of Courses .................................................................................................................... 85
Embedding Quality Assurance in Programme Offers for Articulation........................................... 86
From CriticalMas to Digital Innovation and Entrepreneurship ...................................................... 89
Implementing the Banner ERP System: Successes ............................................................................ 89
ERP System Transition Planning Team/OCCS ERP Unit................................................................ 92
Enabling Technologies: Updates and Upgrades................................................................................. 92
CAPTER 4: LESSONS LEARNED AND BEST PRACTICES ........................................................... 93

5|Page “Opening Doors to Life Changing Learning.”

Curriculum Development - Determining Labour Market Needs ..................................................... 94
Strategic Marketing: Building Internal and External Partnerships ................................................ 98
Building Human Capacity – Training, Strategic Recruitment and Staff Retention..................... 101
Institutional Capacity Building ............................................................................................................. 105
Strategic Mandate – Progress on Five Strategic Initiatives ............................................................ 105

KEY: Strategic Goal Explanations................................................................................................ 108
Ongoing Targets up to 2022 ............................................................................................................... 108
ICT Driven Business Processes: The Banner ERP System ............................................................. 110
ICT Driven Business Processes: The EDRM System....................................................................... 112
The New Electronic Records Management System: A Flexible Phased Rollout........................... 113
The Virtual Library: The Online Library Information System..................................................... 114
Conceptual Designs for the Future Infrastructure Needs of the Open Campus ........................... 115
Cross-Cutting Theme of Gender Equality........................................................................................ 116
Cross-Cutting Theme of Environmental Sensitivity........................................................................ 117
CHAPTER 5: RESOURCE NEEDS TO SUSTAIN SDEC SUCCESSES......................................... 118
Outstanding Achievements: The SDEC Project............................................................................... 119
Measures taken by the Open Campus to Sustain Project Successes .............................................. 121
Challenges Remaining After the SDEC Project Implementation................................................... 122
Recommended Solutions for the Short-, Medium- and Long-Term .............................................. 122
CHAPTER 6: CONCEPTUALISING THE FUTURE: CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE .............. 134
The UWI Open Campus – An Attractive Investment Opportunity for You!................................ 139
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION............................................................................................................... 140
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................... 142

6|Page “Opening Doors to Life Changing Learning.”

TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1: Undergraduate Grade Point Average System ............................................................................... 26
Table 2: Graduation Statistics during the SDEC Project Years .................................................................. 27
Table 3: Full-Time Staff Categories: Academic Divisions and Services Provided .................................... 32
Table 4: Achievements on the SDEC project Outputs - June 2019 ........................................................... 57
Table 5: Open Campus’ Strategic Initiatives: 2017-2022........................................................................... 72
Table 6: BDU Partnership Agreements with Open Campus Stakeholders ................................................. 77
Table 7: The UWI Open Campus Strategic Plan Update.......................................................................... 105
Table 8: Resource Needs to Sustain the Successes of the SDEC Project ................................................. 123

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Open Campus Graduates Celebrating their Achievements ......................................................... 28
Figure 2: Location and Equipment of the Primary Enterprise Server Data Centre..................................... 29
Figure 3: “We Respond Appropriately to All Challenges, Including Nature’s”......................................... 30
Figure 4: Reflecting another layer of resilience.......................................................................................... 30
Figure 5: The SDEC Project - Organogram................................................................................................ 46
Figure 6: SDEC Project Meeting Schedules for Internal Monitoring......................................................... 48
Figure 7: The SDEC Project’s Gender Equality Strategy Action Plan ....................................................... 52
Figure 8: Celebrating Incremental Progress and Milestones on the SDEC Project .................................... 54
Figure 9: Mass Media Coverage of Project Milestones .............................................................................. 55
Figure 10: Cover of Open Campus Annual Report for 2017/2018 ............................................................. 76
Figure 11: Programme Advisory Committees and the Quality Assurance Process .................................... 83
Figure 12: Multiple Pathways to Higher Degrees in the UWI Open Campus ............................................ 87
Figure 13: Promoting Programmes, Courses and Webinars ....................................................................... 88
Figure 14: Technology Support Services Improving Students’ Performance............................................. 91
Figure 15: Decision Making Process – The Foundation for Success.......................................................... 94
Figure 16: Staff at all Levels of the Open Campus Participated in Training ............................................ 104
Figure 17: Key Targets for 2022............................................................................................................... 110

7|Page “Opening Doors to Life Changing Learning.”

AP ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
APAD
ASAP Action Plan
ATSS Academic Programming and Delivery
AWP Academic, Senior, Administrative and Professional
BAC Administrative and Technical Support Services
BARNOD Annual Work Plan
BDP Barbados Accreditation Council
BDU Barbados National Organisation of the Disabled
BSM&ES Business Development Plan
BGSR Business Development Unit
BSR Balanced Scorecard Monitoring and Evaluation System
BUS Board for Graduate Studies and Research
CA Baseline Study Report
CAB Board for Undergraduate Studies
CAQAC Contribution Agreement
CARICOM Campus Academic Board
CATS Campus Academic Quality Assurance Committee
CATs Caribbean Common Market
CCDC Computing and Technology Services
CDB Capacity Assessment Tools
CCJ Caribbean Child Development Centre
CDC Caribbean Development Bank
CDD Consular Corps of Jamaica
CDS Curriculum Development Committee
CFO Course Development Department
CIDA Course Development Specialist
CIO Chief Financial Officer
CIK Canadian International Development Agency
CMP Chief Information Officer
CMA Contribution-in-kind
CMAS Change Management Plan
Caribbean Military Academy.
CriticalMas

8|Page “Opening Doors to Life Changing Learning.”

CMEN Campus Memorandum of Estimate of Needs
CPEU Continuing and Professional Education Unit
CPM Chief Process Manager
CRM Constituent Relationship Management
CQF Caribbean Qualification Framework
CSDR Consortium for Social Development and Research
CSPC Campus Strategic Planning Committee
CSEC Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate
CXC Caribbean Examination Council
CSO Civil Society Organisation
DE Distance Education
DFATID Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and International Development
ECCB Eastern Caribbean Central Bank
EDRMS Electronic Documents and Records Management System
EMS Enrolment Management System
EUT End User Testing
E&PC Evaluation and Promotions Committee
FAQ Frequently Asked Question
FO Financial Officer (PMU)
GES Gender Equality Specialist
GESAP Gender Equality Strategy and Action Plan
GAC Global Affairs Canada
GAC-TM GAC Team Lead (Canada Office)
GPA Grade Point Average
HOD Head of Department
HOS/PO Head of Site/Programme Officer
HRD Human Resource Department
HSLSI Hugh Shearer Labour Studies Institute
ICBP Institutional Capacity Building Plan
ICT Information Communications Technology
ITL Implementation Team Lead
IT Information Technology
IDC Instructional Development Coordinator

9|Page “Opening Doors to Life Changing Learning.”

JCF Jamaica Constabulary Force
JDF Jamaica Defence Force
KPMG Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler
KPs Knowledge Products
KSO Key Strategy Officers
LM Logic Model
LMS Learning Management System
M-YR Mid-Year Report
M&E Monitoring & Evaluation
MFOI Managing and Facilitating Online Instruction
MYCDP Multi-Year Curriculum Development Plan
NGO Non-governmental Organisation
OCAS Open Campus Academy of Sports
OCCS Open Campus Country Sites
OCLT Open Campus Leadership Team
OCSSR Open Campus Self-Study Report
ODLIS Open and Distance Learning Instructional Specialist
OECS Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States
OOL Office of On-line Learning
OAS Organisation of American States
PAC Programme Advisory Committee
PAIR Planning & Institutional Research
PAS Performance Assessment System
PDCA Plan, Do, Check, Act protocol
PEMANDU Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Malaysia Government)
PIEI Planning, Implementation, Evaluation and Improvement
PLA Prior Learning and Assessment
PLAR Prior Learning and Assessment Recognition
PMC Project Management Committee
PMF Performance Measurement Framework
PMU Project Management Unit
PPP Power-Point Presentation™
PTL Project Team Lead (GAC Regional Office)

10 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

QA Quality Assurance
QAE Quality Assurance Evaluation
QAO Quality Assurance Officer
QAU Quality Assurance Unit
QMS Quality Management System
QMSIC Quality Management System Implementation Committee
QM Quality Matters
QMT Quality Management Team
RBM Results Based Management
RFP Request for Proposal
RCIPS Royal Cayman Islands Police Service
RIMP Records and Information Management Programme
RMU Records Management Unit
SDEC Strengthening Distance Education in the Caribbean
SME Subject Matter Expert
SOWs Scope of Works
SP Sustainability Plans
SSC Strategy Steering Committee
SWTRC Social Work Training and Research Centre
SVUS Single Virtual University Space
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
TAP Technological Advancement Programme
TL Team Lead
TOC Table of Contents
TOS Table of Specifications
ToR Terms of Reference
THE Times Higher Education
The UWI The University of the West Indies
TVET Technical and Vocational Education and Training
UAT User Acceptance Testing
UEMT University Executive Management Team
UF&GPC University Finance and General Purposes Committee
UGC University Grants Committee
UMAD University Management Audit Department

11 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UOP University Office of Planning
USF Universal Service Fund (Jamaica)
WAND Women and Development Unit
WBS Work Breakdown Structure
WIRSPA West Indies Rum and Spirits Producers Association

CIDA GLOSSARY OF TERMS
CMas
COE Canadian International Development Agency was later changed to Department of Foreign
Aid, Trade and International Development (DFATID) and later to Global Affairs Canada
CEU (GAC)
GAC-TM
Gender Equitable CriticalMas – The Open Campus proposes to establish a Centre of Excellence in Digital
Entrepreneurship. The Campus’ first step in that direction is the development of CriticalMas
(CMas) which is a series of programmes targeting underserved populations and aimed at
reducing youth unemployment, increasing the relevance of education and training, reducing
the gender imbalance in the ICT sector and prepping the Caribbean for engagement in the
regional and global digital economy

Centre of Excellence: Several universities are engaging in high quality performance in
disciplines such as engineering, biological science, teaching and linguistics through
established Centres of Excellence (COE). These COE are areas of specialty in which
academic communities provide excellent education and training, research and innovation
that demonstrate their superior proficiency. They are often geographically concentrated but
may be virtual or distributed, consisting of a network of cooperative partners with a
coordinating centre. Typically, COE use data to inform national and regional development
priorities and drive evidence-based decisions for policymaking. They provide important
mechanisms for training future generations of researchers, innovators and entrepreneurs.
They also foster international exchanges of research data, information and best practices.
The UWI subscribes to the philosophy of COEs and has a COE in Teaching and Learning
(CETL).

Continuing Education Unit: The strategic establishment of the Open Campus’
Continuing Education Unit is to develop an online repository of programmes,
partnerships with employers to develop specialised programmes and establish a system for
the continuing improvement of programmes. These programmes will be aligned to the
competency standards of the Caribbean Qualification Framework (CQF) and the
CARICOM Human Resource 2030 sustainable goals.

Project Team Lead based at GAC’s Headquarters in Canada

“Gender equitable refers to policies, practices, budgeting, regulations etc. (sic) that ensure
equal outcomes for women and men based on gender analysis” (Gender Equality
Guidelines for Projects, DFATD, 2013 Annex II). A nuanced gender analysis of the

12 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

Gender Sensitive Caribbean higher education context presents a strong case for women’s empowerment for
participation in decision-making and increasing their access to and control over resources
Mid-Cycle and development benefits as well as targeting underserved young men for their increased
OLC participation in post-secondary level education
Older Campuses Gender sensitive refers to establishing quantitative and or qualitative indicators that convey
targeted gender-related changes over time and may be disaggregated by sex, age, location,
STRIDE ethnicity/race, geographic location, socio-economic status, time spent in training,
Sustainability household and community labour and collected in a gender sensitive manner, for example
collecting data from women and men separately and together, when appropriate. Ideally,
University Centre the data collected to measure these indicators use a participatory methodology. They are
UWI countries collected early in the project or prior to starting the project and are used to establish
Wrap- baselines, set targets, data sources etc., that are monitored throughout the project’s life-
around/Resource cycle. These data enable the measurement, inter alia of the rate of women and men’s
based Course participation and the distribution of project benefits.
Development Report submitted by the Open Campus in 2016 to the Barbados Accreditation Council
Manual (BAC) to update the Council on the status of the implementation of its recommendations
made at the time of approving accreditation status for the Open Campus in 2013.

Open Learning Centre – an Open Campus Site located on an older UWI Campus. One
each is located at Cave Hill, Barbados; Mona, Jamaica; and St. Augustine, Trinidad and
Tobago.

The UWI Campuses that were established before the Open Campus are sometimes
referred to as the ‘older campuses’, ‘the landed campuses’, ‘the traditional campuses’,
‘physical campuses’ and or the ‘residential campuses’. This report consistently refers to
them as the ‘older campuses’.

Strategic Transformation for Relevance, Impact, Distinctiveness and Excellence – the
ACRONYM used to describe The UWI’s 2007-2012 Strategic Plan

“Sustainability” [in the SEDC Project ] refers to the continuation of project goals,
principles, and efforts to achieve desired outcomes [not] finding the resources to continue
“as is” beyond the projects’ end [but] ensuring sustainability really means making sure
that the goals of Projects continue to be met through activities that are consistent with the
current conditions and workforce development needs of the Caribbean, including the
needs of both learners, workers, employers, and other stakeholders (Knapp 2019: 4)

Terminology referencing the Regional Headquarters of The UWI as the central decision-
making body of the University
UWI countries: refers to the countries whose governments agree to fund the University of
the West Indies. They are also referred to as ‘contributing countries’
Wrap-around/Resource based Course Development Manual used to guide course writing in
the Open Campus. Writers are encouraged to develop content material that emphasises the
integration of interactive, resource-based, multimedia-enhanced learning opportunities
which increase teaching effectiveness, flexible designs, more diverse learning styles;
student engagement, and teaching and learning strategies that facilitate critical thinking,
learner engagement, reflective practice using authentic learning experiences while
including gender sensitive and diversity considerations.

13 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

KEY MEASURES OF OPEN CAMPUS PROGRESS
754 GRADUATES

130 + FIRST CLASS HONOURS
6, 325 Total Enrolment (Senate Approved)
5,351 Female Enrolment (Senate Approved)
974 Male Enrolment (Senate Approved)
25-34 Years: Highest Enrolment Age Band

3, 725 Bachelor of Science Enrolment
11, 179 Continuing & Professinal Enrolment (Face-to-Face)

17, 504 Total Student Enrolment
538 Staff

4, 131, 069 Total Webpage Views
12, 758 Facebook Followers
444, 592 Website Users

14 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

ABSTRACT

The Strengthening Distance Education in the Caribbean (SDEC) project was implemented from April 1,
2014 to June 30, 2019. The project focused on increasing access to post-secondary education and building
the institutional capacity of The UWI Open Campus to sustain increased enrolment. The overarching
objective of the project was to increase gender equitable employment and other income-generating
opportunities to enhance the socio-economic, cultural and political development of the English-speaking
Caribbean Region and beyond.

Overall, the programme development divisions, the Academic Programming and Delivery Division, the
Open Campus Country Sites, and the Consortium for Social Development and Research, produced 70
programmes and nearly 400 courses funded by the SDEC project. A robust gender sensitive regional
marketing programme was also implemented. This included a re-design of the Open Campus’ Website,
which brought it in line with ‘The One UWI Brand’, increased technological interface and improved
consistency of messaging and target specific marketing. Faculty and technology support staff were all
trained in online pedagogy/androgyny, technology and gender sensitivity. A Prior Learning and Assessment
Recognition System was implemented and an OER portal was launched, increasing the UWI’s global
footprint.

Institutional capacity for sustaining increased enrolment was achieved. A strategic plan, the Triple A
Strategy 2017-2022, which focuses on increasing access, building partnerships with internal and external
stakeholders - alignment - and agility – responding creatively, innovatively and quickly to opportunities, is
driving the development of the Open Campus. Senior and middle level managers and administrators were
trained in leadership, change and results management, strategic planning, financial management and
infrastructure maintenance management. Staff were trained in performance assessment systems,
programme management and 20 programmes and operations at five Sites were reviewed and evaluated,
which strengthened the quality assurance culture. A Policy for the management of online programmes was
developed and a Mid-Cycle Accreditation Report was submitted to the Barbados Accreditation Council
(BAC) in 2016 and the self-study for re-accreditation was done in 2018. The Open Campus received re-
accreditation for the maximum period possible, seven years. The preparation process for re-accreditation
afforded the Campus an opportunity for self-reflection and the specification of recommendations to improve
on identified gaps.

A new Banner Enterprise Resource Management (ERP) System was implemented, which enabled the
Campus to re-engineer its core business processes. An ERP Unit was set-up and staffed to manage the
technology associated with the re-engineered business processes. While experiencing teething pains, and
continually honing practices and improving processes, the system has dramatically improved student
support services. Students can now register online, view their grades, access transcripts, graduation
information and peruse course/programme information online. All devices can interface with the Website.
A flexible, phased roll out of an Electronic Documents Management System was planned and the first two
phases were rolled out. These have made the Open Campus compliant with international best practices
regarding the management of institutional records. The governance records, their classification, storage and
retrieval are now complete. A Draft Policy document for records management was developed and circulated
for review and approval; a detailed change management plan was produced to inform the subsequent rollout
of phases. An online digital library information system (LIS) was implemented, the Aleph® system, which
brought the Open Campus in line with the sister Campuses and international best practices.

15 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

Conceptual designs for the future physical infrastructure needs, including ICT, of Open Campus Sites was
developed. They are eco-friendly, energy and sewage efficient and consider issues of climate change and
the vulnerabilities of the region. The designs are aligned with the programme themes and the centre of
excellence concept; they are family, wellness, gender and diversity friendly. The programme themes are
fully integrated with the environmental resources and the cultural history of the Sites.

This report describes, in detail, the processes and procedures, which the Open Campus used to achieve the
transformational changes described. The authors contend that the participatory, consensus decision-making
model, practised at every level of the project, inspired beneficiaries to ‘go beyond the call of duty’ which
resulted in achievements beyond targets, if not expectations. Leadership modelled the desired behaviour
and it was retuned. The discussion model, of listening carefully, encouraging participation, and having the
skill to end a conversation respectfully to facilitate decision-making, contributed to the success of the
process.

This document, because it is as futuristic as it is reflective, describes survey respondents’ perception of the
successes of the SDEC project, the challenges that remain and the resources that the Open Campus needs
to effectively manage these challenges. Where an analysis of the data permitted, a distinction to be made
among the short-, medium- and long-term solutions, they were made.

Research participants concluded that the Open Campus experienced a dramatic shift in its resource base. It
now has an extensive array of programmes and courses in its portfolio, which were market-demand driven.
It has the Telecom/ICT capacity to maintain the programmes developed. It has documented processes and
procedures and it is reviewing and modifying programmes to meet specific client needs. They are
continually reflecting on their experiences and identifying practices and procedures to improve the
efficiencies of the technological operations and business processes. Survey respondents also cited the
conceptual designs for the future physical infrastructure needs of the Open Campus as a positive outcome
of the SDEC project.

Respondents also acknowledged that to stay relevant, efficient and provide excellence in customer service,
the Campus needed to obtain funding to renew technology, update software and train staff. Asked what the
strengths of the organisation were at project start-up; respondents said - a cadre of highly trained,
professional staff who were mission driven. That opinion remains but has been expanded to include the
benefits accruing to the Campus from the SDEC project outputs – more relevant programmes, more quality
assurance, significant advances in student online support services, faculty training, more computer
laboratories, more stable Internet service, cable networks, equipment and peripherals and more
opportunities for partnerships and growth.

The report has nine sections including the abstract and appendices. The first is the Abstract, which
summarises the document and describes how the report is structured. Chapter 1 is the Introduction, which
describes the historical and cultural context of the University of the West Indies and the emergence and
launch of the Open Campus, the fourth of five Campuses of The UWI. It segues into a brief description of
the achievements of the project on the 16 outputs. That description is followed by an explanation of the
rationale for undertaking this study followed by a description of the operations of The UWI and the Open
Campus. For example, its grading policy, staffing, teaching/learning strategies, governance structure,
financial operations and quality assurance policy. The Chapter then describes how the Open Campus is
giving leadership to the digitisation of The UWI, one of its strategic goals under the Triple A Strategic Plan
2017-2022. It ends with a description of how the SDEC project was managed to achieve transparency and
accountability and how the system of reporting enhanced communication and strengthened the quality
assurance practices in the Open Campus.

16 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

Chapter 2: “Honing the Aims and Objectives for Synergy,” describes how the project goals, outcomes and
outputs were refined to make them more context specific and how the Contribution Agreement was
operationalised beginning with the development of the Project Implementation Plan. The reporting
relationships and levels, the communications structure and decision-making structure that facilitated
transparency and accountability are then described. The ‘support’ role that project managers played is
singled out for discussion because it was an important element for the projects’ success. The development
of the monitoring and evaluation tools is described which is followed by a brief discussion of how the
crosscutting themes of gender equality and environmental sustainability were integrated into the project.
The Chapter closes with an explanation of how the Marketing and Communications Department built
relationships with traditional media and photographs of a few milestones achieved in the early period of the
project.

Chapter 3: Titled “Outcomes on the Sixteen Project Outputs”, details the successes achieved on the SDEC
Projects outcomes and each of the 16 outputs as well as the crosscutting themes of gender equality and
environmental sustainability. The SDEC project achieved an 89 percent success on targeted outputs; the
remaining 11 percent was partially achieved. This limitation was mainly related to contextual factors
beyond the project’s control. The strategic planning process used at the University centre and in the Open
Campus is detailed because it demonstrates the attempts at democratisation and the elaborate monitoring
and evaluation structures, procedures and processes that The UWI/Open Campus use to achieve success on
strategic goals and targets. The model was also used to develop the strategic initiatives at the Open Campus
and was practised during the implementation of the SDEC project to maximise outcomes and achieve
transparency and accountability.

The Chapter then highlights outstanding achievements which are positioning the Open Campus well for
diversifying its funding sources and restoring its financial health. These achievements include the Business
Development Unit (BDU), which is working with the programme development departments to build
linkages and partnerships with internal and external stakeholders to increase revenue sources. The process
of establishing the Programme Advisory Committees (PAC) to strengthen linkages with knowledgeable
labour market stakeholders to create synergy between programme offers and labour market needs.

The description of the PACs is followed by an explanation of the rationale for establishing the Continuing
and Professional Education Centre. The Centre is tasked with increasing revenue by developing a suite of
continuing and professional education and training programmes aimed at strengthening a robust Caribbean
labour force. The methodology used to increase the efficiency with which programmes are produced – the
“Common-Core of Courses” is explained next. The process, which the Open Campus projects will reduce
programme production costs by 44 percent, is now mainstreamed in the Campus.

Immediately following the description of the programme production process is an explanation of the
CriticalMas project which will offer technology courses to youth. The plan is to transform that project into
the Centre of Excellence (COE) for Technology and Entrepreneurship to mainstream the digital economy
and entrepreneurship concept into the Caribbean education system. That segues into an outline of the
advantages accruing to the Open Campus because of the technology upgrades implemented under the
Enterprise Resource Management (ERP) System, which re-engineered the core business processes in the
Campus. It also dramatically improved student support services. The chapter ends with a brief description
of how the marketing and communications department worked with internal stakeholders to create buy-in
for technology changes and to promote the new and renewed programmes using a gender sensitive
marketing strategy.

Chapter 4: “Lessons Learned and Best Practices on Project Outputs” – highlights the best practices and
the areas that had the most to teach. The core of the discussion revolves around how detailed planning,

17 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

resource mobilisation, diligent execution, and effective monitoring, analysis and evaluation strategies were
used to continually and incrementally improve outcomes. The Chapter begins by describing how the
consensus decision-making process was used to identify the five strategic initiatives on which the Open
Campus is focussed for the strategic planning period 2017 to 2022. It then describes how the SDEC project
goals were aligned to the strategic initiatives and how the consensus decision-making model was used
within the elements of the project that had the most meaningful lessons to teach. The elements described
are, determining labour market needs and aligning the findings to programme and course offers developed,
the best practices for implementing a strategic marketing plan and building institutional capacity through
training. The detailed description of the methodology used to implement the ERP and EDRM systems
follows.

In the cases of the ERP and EDRM systems, the deepest lessons are the requirements for detailed needs
assessments. These assessments are necessary to develop change management plans, risk assessments and
contingencies, detailed resource mobilisation, and monitoring and evaluation to avoid scope creep, budget
overruns and or underestimations.

Each Output discussed demonstrates how it facilitated the building of the Open Campus’ institutional
capacity to sustain the successful outcomes of the SDEC project activities.

Chapter 5 identifies the “Resource Needs to Sustain the Successes of the SDEC Project.” A participatory
methodology was used to determine the short-, medium- and long-term resource needs of the Open Campus
to sustain the SDEC project’s successes. The recommendations were developed from the survey results of
the purposively sampled leadership group of the Open Campus and sustainability reviews of the SDEC
project conducted by Campbell (2019), Chipiere (2015, 2018, 2019) and Knapp (2019). The reviews
resulted in the production of nine knowledge documents, which were used to gauge the Open Campus’
level of readiness for implementing the short-, medium- and long-term resource needs to sustain the
project’s results. Before detailing the Campus’ resource needs, several of which were the same for the short-
, medium- and long-term, brief descriptions are made of the status of the Campus before the SDEC project
activities, the gains that resulted from the project, the challenges that remain and the resources needed to
overcome the identified challenges. The discussion is organised around four themes, programme
development, technology, business processes and human resource. The information reported in these
sections was summarised from the survey results.

Chapter 6: “Conceptualising the Future: Centres of Excellence” is the theme of Chapter 6. It details the
process used to develop the conceptual designs for the future physical infrastructure needs of the Open
Campus. In keeping with the pattern set by the decision-making process used at every level of the project,
the contractors were required to continue the consultative process to determine the nature of the proposed
designs. They were also required to “green” the buildings, make them energy and sewage efficient, theme
them based on the proposed curricula to be taught at the Sites and integrate the idea of Centres of Excellence
into the designs. They were also required to conduct environmental impact assessments, soil testing, surveys
and needs analyses based on consultations with internal and external stakeholders. Additionally, they were
required to obtain local authorities’ approval of the designs and to meet the requirements of the laws
pertaining to the environment in both Canada and the countries proposed for piloting the COE. The
proposed Sites and curricula themes are Belize, “Culture, Heritage and Tourism”, the Commonwealth of
Dominica, “Agriculture, Marine Science and Environmental Studies”, St. Kitts and Nevis, “Leadership
Development, Management, Entrepreneurship and Architecture”, and Gordon Street, in Trinidad and
Tobago - “STEM” – Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.

18 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

The consultative methodology and studies used to collect the data to develop the designs are briefly
described in the Chapter mainly to demonstrate the benefits of the consensus decision-making methodology
used throughout the life of the project.

Chapter 7: Is the concluding Chapter of the study and it summarises the argument that the Open Campus
is best positioned to lead The UWI into the digital age of the 21st Century. This conclusion is based on the
Campus’ historical experience in providing distance education for The UWI which began as early as 1948
with the delivery of extra mural studies. The resilience that the Campus has consistently displayed since its
launch, the recent technological upgrades and dramatic increase in programme offers and the pursuit of its
strategic objectives have further strengthened its position for escorting The UWI into digitising the
University. The Chapter concludes with an invitation to existing and potential new partners to join the
Campus which is an attractive investment opportunity for the individual, governments and national,
regional and international donor agencies.

The Appendices follow, with a list of the individuals (Appendix 1) and documents (Appendix 2) consulted
to obtain information for the study. The Open Campus Strategic Initiatives are described in Appendix 3,
and the Knowledge Documents developed from the SDEC Project in Appendix 4.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This Case Study of the successes achieved by the UWI Open Campus while implementing the
CND32M project, Strengthening Distance Education in the Caribbean (SDEC), details the strategies,
lessons learned and best practices achieved by the Campus during the implementation period 2014
to 2019. It also describes the situation at start-up, the improvements that resulted from the SDEC Project,
the challenges that remain and recommendations for alleviating those challenges. This information was
culled mainly from an online survey of purposively sampled members of middle and senior leadership.
Knowledge products produced toward the end of the project detailing processes used during project
implementation also informed the recommendations. These knowledge documents included descriptions of
the project management and core-courses production methodology used to develop programmes, the
consensus decision-making and report writing process, and the implementation of Programme Advisory
Committees (PACs) as best practices.

The report provides a knowledge document that identifies transferable practices that built sustainable
local capacity. It highlights the use of the transformational leadership practice of modelling desired
behaviour and the exercise of democratic, flexible, reflective and reflexive consensus-decision making as
motivational tools. These management tools are creating behavioural change that achieved outputs that
exceeded targets, if not expectations.

Outstanding achievements included the development of 70 programmes and nearly 400 courses,2 a
regional gender sensitive marketing and promotion strategy, faculty training, and the implementation of

2 The academic division produced 24 programmes and 242 courses; 13 of the programmes were graduate programmes, 2 of
which were doctoral programmes. The Continuing and Professional Education (CPE) Unit produced 37 programmes and an
associated 120 courses. The CSDR produced 3 community leadership programmes and 12 courses; one MPhil/PhD with 8 courses;
1 productivity management certificate course, and 2 women and gender certificate courses. Two courses were produced for PLA
- Advanced Credits and for Matriculation; one course ‘Digital Literacy’ was produced to increase ICT competencies for newly
enrolled students. Additionally, two courses were produced for CriticalMas- a technology programme targeting youth and
undergraduates.

19 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

PLA courses as a new pathway to gaining post-secondary education. Another outstanding achievement was
the establishment of a CPE Centre outside of the OCCS with responsibility for CPE policy development.
Its objectives are to serve the needs of the entire Open Campus and the other UWI Campuses and to drive
the development of a repository of online CPE Courses to contribute toward developing a more robust
Caribbean labour force. Two courses targeting NEET3 Youth and undergraduates were also developed for
the project - CriticalMas. CriticalMas will teach coding, mobile apps development, workforce ethics and
digital entrepreneurship. The expectation is that CriticalMas will evolve into an Open Campus Centre of
Excellence (COE) for Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

The SDEC Project also invested in Leadership development – transformational leadership training,
relationship management training, change management, strategic and results management, coaching,
mentoring, facilitating and strategic planning. Emerging from the consultative strategic planning process,
which UWI Centre facilitated, the Open Campus identified five strategic initiatives, three of which were
the focus of the biennial planning period 2017-2019. The five areas that the Open Campus targeted for
strategic development were: Implementing a programme to advance flexible teaching/learning, building
student support services, building a suite of CPE programmes to contribute to building a robust Caribbean
labour force, implementing programmes to increase staff engagement and morale and establishing a COE
for Digital Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

Programme development was complemented by the implementation of a robust, regional marketing
plan, which focused on target specific messaging to shift gender balance in student enrolment and increase
diversity in the student population. Content featured the different ethnicities and cultures of the Region.
Collaboration increased between programme developers and marketing to enhance opportunities for
promotion. Online publications such as e-newsletters increased in quality, contributors and circulation;
social media networking increased significantly, both exceeding their 15 percent targeted annual increases.
The Open Campus Website was redesigned and aligned with the ‘One UWI Brand’. The technological
upgrade made the Website compatible with all devices, more attractive, user-friendly and the content more
target market specific. As the new programmes and courses rolled out, different departments were assigned
their own Webpages.

On the technology-side, institutional capacity was built to sustain the expected increase in student
enrolment. A new Banner ERP system was implemented, which succeeded in re-engineering core business
processes; these dramatically improved student support-services. Students enjoy an interactive online
experience in which they can explore programme offers, register, pay fees, view grades, request transcripts
etc. A flexible, phased rollout of an EDRMS occurred in which the Open Campus became compliant with
international records management standards and the standards used at the other UWI Campuses. An online
Library Information System using state of the art software, Aleph® was implemented. Increased
collaboration is occurring between the Library and the programme development departments to implement
a robust Student Advising System.

Lastly, the conceptual design drawings and preliminary costings for the future physical infrastructure
(including ICT) needs of the Open Campus was completed. The structures are designed to be eco-friendly,
energy and sewage efficient and are themed to the natural resources and history and culture of the Sites
selected for upgrade. The Sites targeted for piloting the Centres of Excellence (COE) are Belize, with the
programme theme, “Culture, Heritage and Tourism”, the Commonwealth of Dominica, “Agriculture,
Marine Science and Environmental Studies”, St. Kitts and Nevis, “Leadership Development, Management,

3 NEET is a descriptor for youth who are, ‘Neither in Education, Employment or Training’.

20 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

Entrepreneurship and Architecture”, and Gordon Street, in Trinidad and Tobago - “STEM” – Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.

The crosscutting themes of gender-equality and environmental sustainability were integrated into
programme content and the physical infrastructure designs. A Gender Equality Strategy Action Plan
(GESAP) document was developed based on a gender analysis of the Open Campus. The research findings
were used to develop an Action Plan that was implemented throughout the life of the project.

Challenges remaining after the end of the SDEC project and recommended solutions are also described.
These solutions were culled mainly from purposively sampled survey respondents and sustainability
reviews completed by Knapp (2019, February), Campbell (2019, February), and Chipere (2015, 2017;
2018). These authors produced Knowledge Products (documents), which described processes and
procedures used in implementing elements of the SDEC project that described best practices that are
transferable.

Demonstrating Capacity

Documenting the SDEC implementation process serves the primary objective of demonstrating the capacity
of the Open Campus to mobilise resources required to implement a challenging mandate. By extrapolation,
it highlights the Campus’ capability of sustaining and repeating such achievements and thus deserving the
unqualified support of stakeholders in its pursuit of further advancing a Campus that is ‘opening doors to
life changing learning’. Toward this end, the report identifies the short-, medium- and long-term investment
needs of the Open Campus to sustain over the long-term, the successes achieved under the SDEC project.

Historical Background

[T]he primary mandate of the University of the West Indies (The UWI) is to serve in advancing the socio-
economic, intellectual, cultural and political capital of the Caribbean Community to sustain its integrated
and inclusive development (The UWI Triple ‘A’ Strategy 2017-2022: 1-5). The Open Campus, The UWI’s
fourth, is the primary outreach resource of the University with nearly 50 Sites operating in 17 English-
speaking territories in the Caribbean Region. The Campus “is based on the idea that the high-quality
university education, research and services; that it offers [should be accessible] to all people who wish to
reach their full potential inside and outside of the Caribbean region… [Consequently, the Campus adopts]
quality teaching and learning experiences, innovative pedagogic design, relevant research and community
partnerships to deliver face-to-face, blended and online learning” (Open Campus Annual Report 2017-
2018: 5).

The UWI] was established by Royal Charter in 1948 as a College of the University of London. In 1962, the
College became an independent University. The UWI is the oldest regional institution of higher education
in the Commonwealth Caribbean. It is one of two regional universities in the world, the other is, the
University of the South Pacific. The UWI provides training, research and advisory services to governments,
the private sector, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society organisations (CSOs).
Additionally, it has collaborative links with other intra- and extra-regional institutions. The UWI has five
Campuses, Mona in Jamaica (1962), Cave Hill in Barbados (1964), St. Augustine in Trinidad and Tobago
(1966), the Open Campus (2008)4 and UWI 5 Islands Campus (2019) in Antigua and Barbuda. The UWI
currently has over 45,000 students and graduates approximately 9,000 students annually. Among its
graduates, the University boasts 18 political leaders of the Caribbean, Rhodes Scholars, Nobel Laureates

4 The UWI combined its outreach service entities to form the Open Campus with a mandate to focus, consolidate and expand its
Distance Education offers. The entities were The School of Continuing Studies and its associated community development and
research units, the UWI Distance Education Centre (UWIDEC) and the Tertiary Level Institution Unit (TLIU). It dissolved the Board
for Non-Campus Countries and Distance Education (BNNCDE).

21 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

and several Executive /Administrative leaders of the United Nations. The 2019 Times Higher Education
(THE) World University Rankings placed The UWI among the world’s top 5 percent of Universities which
places it in the elite brand of universities worldwide. Among the 1,258 top universities in the world which
made the list for 2019, THE ranked The UWI number 591. Globally, over 25,000 universities are
recognised. The UWI is the only Caribbean institution on the worldwide list. It was the only Caribbean
university ranked in THE’s 2018 list of Latin America University Rankings

(http://www.uwi.edu/ranking/index).

The Open Campus voluntarily sought and obtained
accreditation status in June 2013. The Campus
received re-accreditation in 2019 for the maximum
period possible – seven years.

In the Beginning…

The UWI Open Campus was formally established on July 4, 2008 at the Council of the Caribbean Heads
of Government Annual Meeting in Antigua & Barbuda. Its establishment was a visionary and strategic
response to the Region’s growing need to increase access to higher education and lifelong learning required
for the 21st century. Its foundation was however, initiated in 1948 with the prescient establishment of an
extra mural department within the University College to provide outreach services to the Caribbean. After
decades of incremental changes, the outreach services evolved into the Open Campus.

Its launch coincided with the onset of the global economic recession in 2007-2008.5 The recession
negatively affected regional economies, which resulted in further reducing governments’6 capacity to make
financial contributions to The UWI. The economic crisis compounded traditional challenges related to
systemic and structural weaknesses grounded in mono-crop production under colonialism, fiscal
challenges, small size, susceptibility to global economic shocks, migration of skilled labour7 and
vulnerabilities to natural disasters. Some of these economies are recovering slowly or not at all from the
2007-2009 crisis. Consequently, in some countries, unemployment numbers, especially among the youth,
increased to double digits.

Adding geographic dispersion, small populations, limited economic diversification, inadequate
infrastructure and high transportation costs, which limit inter-regional movement and integration, to the
challenges described earlier, Caribbean economies are desperate for building human capital for sustainable
development. Efficiently and effectively responding to that desperation is the mandate of the UWI Open
Campus. These external challenges experienced by the Open Campus were intensified by institutional
challenges.

At start-up, the Open Campus faced limitations of inadequate space, few and old computer
laboratories, limited Internet access and insufficient and outdated equipment at some of the Sites.
These limitations prevented the Campus from serving a wider constituency, especially underserved
populations. Further, the range of programme and course offers was insufficient to meet the varying needs

5 Havermann, Joel. The Financial Crisis of 2008: Year in Review. Encyclopaedia Britannica: School and Library Subscribers at
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Financial-Crisis-of-2008-The-1484264. Accessed February 25, 2016.
6 Initially, contributing governments’ funded 62.6 per cent of the Open Campus’ budget and students’ 37.4 percent (Business
Development Plan 2012-2017 cited in GES 2016).
7 UN/POP/EGM-MIG. 2006. Expert Group Meeting on International Migration and Development in Latin America and the
Caribbean, at http://www.un.org/esa/population/meetings/IttMigLAC/P10_WB-DECRG.pdf

22 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

of potential students/learners. The Open Campus also needed a more flexible teaching/learning system to
meet the life-style needs of a mainly working adult learner population.

In addition, in 2010, when the Open Campus mooted the request for funding the SDEC project, over 60
percent of enrolees were less than 34 years of age and were young, employed professionals in government
(education), banking and finance. Many were also in managerial positions in the public and private sectors.
Fourteen percent of students were enrolled in pre-qualifying courses, 80 percent in undergraduate courses
and six percent in graduate courses. Newly enrolled (first time) students numbered 2947 (approximately 12
percent of the total student body (Baseline Study Report 2014). 8 Students (69 percent) were mainly from
the three older campus countries - Barbados, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago; the remaining 31 percent
were from other Open Campus Country Sites (OCCS). The fastest growth rates in student enrolment were
in the Commonwealth of Dominica, St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines (ibid.).

These baseline indicators significantly demonstrated the need for the Open Campus to broaden its student
base, its programme offers and reach a broader population other than those in the three older Campus
territories – Barbados, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago.

Another important issue affecting the design of the SDEC project was the significant gender imbalance in
student enrolment. Enrolment averaged 80 % females to 20 % males; a few leadership and management
programmes had a 70:30 ratio. Consequently, throughout the life of the project, promotional efforts focused
on segmented target marketing with the intention of shifting gender balance in student enrolment. In fact,
in all instances, where opportunities presented for addressing issues of gender inequality, they were
discussed.

It is worthy of note also, that, with the exception of ICT and Technical and Vocational Education and
Training (TVET) offers, in which males are a majority, this disproportionality in gender balance exists at
the tertiary level of education throughout the region (CARICOM Human Resource Strategy 2030).9
Additionally, total enrolment at the tertiary level of education in the English-speaking Caribbean is one of
the lowest in the Western hemisphere. Not surprisingly, a direct positive correlation exists between
achievements in tertiary level education and levels of development (Beckles 2015).10

This Caribbean developmental issue is compounded by high youth unemployment, many of whom lack
labour market related skills (Contribution Agreement 2013: 30)11; Eye on the Future 2010: xii).12 Many
youth blame their educational deficiencies on the system’s failure to provide “curriculum options
and delivery systems [that respond] to their talents, skills, interests and needs.” They argue that
the curriculum is “boring, limited and academic focused; ultra-traditional; unequally distributed;
[and that] certificates and diplomas do not guarantee them a job or job security” (Eye on the Future 2010:
xiv - xv).

8 Baseline Study. 2014, February. Report to the Department of Foreign Affairs Trade and Development/ Strengthening Distance
Education in the Caribbean (DFATD/SDEC Project) that described the state of project related Indicators at project start-up in 2014.
9 CARICOM Human Resource Development 2030 Strategy: Unlocking Caribbean Human Potential at
https://caricom.org/documents/16065-caricom-hrd-2030-strategy-viewing.pdf
10 Caribbean’s v-c’s democratic vision at home and abroad: Sir Hilary Beckles tells Ellie Bothwell about his plans for the University
of the West Indies’ future at https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/caribbean-v-cs-democratic-vision-at-home-and-
abroad
11 Contribution Agreement: Caribbean Regional Programme Financial Support to Strengthening Distance Education in the
Caribbean: Purchase Order 7059538, Project Number: A034764, Vendor 1014022
12 Eye on the Future: Investing in Youth Now for Tomorrow’s Future. 2010, January. Report on the CARICOM Commission on
Youth Development at http://www.caricom.org/jsp/community_organs/cohsod_youth/eye_on_the_future_ccyd_report.pdf.
Accessed March 2, 2016.

23 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

Responding to some of these broad concerns was a key mandate of the Open Campus and therefore, became
an objective of the SDEC project. The elements of the project that directly addressed these developmental
issues were new and market driven programmes and courses and establishing additional pathways for
gaining entry into the Campus.
Without pre-empting the discussion on the results of the project, it needs to be stated early, that while a
shift in gender-balance to 50/50 occurred in enrolment for the new CPE programme offers such as IT,
Procurement Management and Facilities Management, the gender imbalance increased further in other
disciplines. The scientific, technical and financial nature of the subject disciplines of those programmes are
areas that males have traditionally found attractive. They are also relatively higher paying than the areas in
which women outnumber men.

Increasing Competition

Other issues confronting the Open Campus at project negotiation were increased competition from other
tertiary level regional and international institutions operating in the Caribbean. Some offered more
advanced technology and efficient administrative and student support services. Competition for teaching
staff and learners was also problematic. The Campus responded by detailing plans for improving
organisational structures, ICT driven business processes, student and staff support services and
infrastructure needs that would enhance its competitiveness. These details were weaved into the proposals
for donor funding and captured in the Open Campus Business Development Plan 2012-2017.

The Open Campus also placed emphasis on The UWI’s brand as a regional University operating as a single
Academy driven by a shared philosophy and operational functions and processes based on a Single Virtual
University Space (SVUS). The journey toward the SVUS is being driven by information technology and
the achievement of excellence in teaching, research and innovation (http://uwi.edu/vcreport/ch-
boundary.php). Operationally, the virtual space is increasing harmonization among campuses, increasing
efficiencies and effectiveness in expediting articulation and business processes, reducing cost and releasing
investments for priority needs. The ultimate goal is the “One UWI Academy”, which will further enhance
regionality while simultaneously releasing additional resources for the development of individual
Campuses.

Multi-modal Delivery System

The Open Campus operates a multi-modal delivery system offering online, blended and face-to-face
programmes at the pre-university, continuing and professional education (CPE), undergraduate, and
graduate levels. The Campus’ establishment and strategic direction were described in The UWI’s Strategic
Plan (2007-2012). Strategic Aim 4 committed to serving UWI-countries13 and underserved communities
by creating “… an Open Campus to enable the University to expand the scope, enhance the appeal and

13 “UWI countries” refers to countries’ governments that agree to fund the University of the West Indies.

24 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

improve the efficiency of its services to the individuals, communities THE UWI’S
and countries which it serves” (STRIDE14 2007: 20, cited in OCSSR LIFELOOD
2018: 1/58).
Created to lead The UWI
The Campus has also responded to changing government needs and in increasing access
policy direction as well as challenging financial situations. The through the offer of online
resilience that it exercises to succeed in such a dynamic environment programmes, the Open
positioned the Campus well for its future growth. The Open Campus Campus’ life-blood is
was also positioned to respond positively to emerging international technological adaptability.
curricula demands including those for more flexible learning and This adaptability has
teaching opportunities. allowed the Campus to
successfully transcend
Dynamic Change Agent physical boundaries and
effectively respond to
At start-up in 2007, the Open Campus, responding to The UWI-wide institutional, national,
Strategic Plan (2007-2012),15 identified four top priorities based on its regional and international
adaptation of the Plan to its mandate and specific needs. These competition and employer
priorities were expanding programme offers that meet specific and student needs.
country, regional and target group needs and developing
undergraduate, senate approved and taught Masters Programmes. The
implementation of an ERP project to improve operational efficiencies
and support student and staff needs, was the third target. Securing ICT
assets, including infrastructure, and pursuing CIDA16 (now GAC)
funding to effect infrastructure upgrades, was the fourth target.

Canada Commits to Caribbean Regional Development
– SDEC Benefits

Coincidentally, as the Open Campus prepared itself to approach donors, the then Prime Minister of Canada,
Stephen Harper, in 2007, announced a CND600M development grant for the Caribbean. Immediately, the
Open Campus submitted a concept paper to CIDA requesting funding for the SDEC project. This
unsolicited concept paper was later modified into a detailed proposal (2010) for grant funding. Three years
later, after negotiations and a re-submission in 2012, on March 27, 2013, The UWI Open Campus and the
Canadian government signed a Contribution Agreement (CA) to implement a four-pronged strategy to
“Strengthen Distance Education in the Caribbean”.

The Agreement was valued at CND $31.062M of which the Canadian government agreed to contribute
$19.260M – 62%; the Open Campus, $7.658M in Contribution-in-kind (CIK) – 25%, the Caribbean
Development Bank (CDB), $3M – 10% and Universal Service Fund (USF) in Jamaica, $1.144M – 3%.

The project activities included some 50 initiatives, which the Open Campus had earlier identified for
implementation during the development of the 2007-2012 and later, the 2012-2017 Strategic Plans. It is
fair to say, therefore, that from the beginning, the SDEC Project focused on meeting the developmental

14 STRIDE: Strategic Transformation for Relevance, Impact, Distinctiveness and Excellence – Acronym that describes The UWI’s
2007-2012 Strategic Plan.
15 The Open Campus dovetailed the Strategic Plan into a Campus specific Business Development Plan (BDP 2007-2012), which
included environmental scans, needs assessments and gap analyses for the operational requirements to fulfil its mandate. The
BDP served as an information portfolio for potential investors and was included in the package of documents submitted to the
Canadian Government for consideration of funding the SDEC Project.
16 Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA); later re-named the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and International
Development (DFATID) and then to Global Affairs Canada (GAC)

25 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

needs of the Open Campus and by extrapolation, The UWI and the Caribbean Region. These needs aimed
to fulfil the Campus’ mandate to increase access, implement an online educational environment and expand

distance education (DE) to the Caribbean Region and beyond.

Baseline Study Report

In advance of project implementation, the Open Campus conducted a Baseline Study Report (BSR) (2014,
February) that identified the status of project related activities at start-up. The study provided a benchmark
or standard against which Open Campus beneficiaries measured the project’s effectiveness and impact. The
findings also assisted the Campus in determining what targets to set and to develop a framework for
monitoring and mapping progress. The Campus also conducted labour market research, which included
national training needs analyses, a review of CARICOM labour market projections and surveys of
employers, students, alumni and other internal and external stakeholders 17 to assist the Campus in
determining programme needs.

Open Campus Sites and Centres

There are 44 Open Campus Country Sites (OCCS) across the English-speaking Caribbean and three Open
Learning Centres (OLC), one on each of the three older UWI Campuses. In addition to the OCCS and the
OLCs, there is the Consortium for Social Development and Research (CSDR). The CSDR has four entities,
the Caribbean Child Development Centre (CCDC); Hugh Shearer Labour Studies Institute (HSLSI); Social
Work Training and Research Centre (SWTRC); and the Women and Development Unit (WAND). The
CSDR is the main research entity of the Open Campus. Recently, The Open Campus implemented the Open
Campus Academy of Sports (OCAS) which resulted from The UWI’s launch of a Faculty of Sports, the
first new Faculty launch in 48 years. Each Campus has a Department of Sports and they are developing
programmes to harness, academically and financially, the athletic wealth of the Region.

There are two main programme delivery sections in the Open Campus - the OCCS and Academic
Programming and Delivery (APAD) Divisions. The APAD is responsible for the development and delivery
of all online programmes in the Open Campus; the OCCS support online students, deliver face-to-face
programmes, seminars and workshops as well as interface with local residents to fulfil their specialised
needs (OCSSR 2018: 2/59). Periodically, individual units of the CSDR develops and delivers courses and
programmes, which occurred under the SDEC project.18

Grade Point Average & Graduation Statistics

The UWI operates an Undergraduate Grade Point Average (GPA) System, the classification of which is
listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Undergraduate Grade Point Average System

No. Classification Grade Point Average

1 First Class Honours 3.6 and above
2 Upper Second Class Honours 3.0 — 3.59

17 The data collection tools included, the 2013 Graduate Tracer Survey, the Employers Satisfaction Survey (2015/2016), the Needs
Assessment Survey, (2013) and Findings from the self-study report (SAR) for Institutional Accreditation (2012).
18 The Child Development Centre implemented the first on-line MPhil/PhD programme – Child, Adolescent and Youth
Development programme, the Labour Institute, an organisational productivity programme, the Social Work Department, three
programmes in community leadership and WAND, two courses in women and gender – Women and the Law and Women’s
Entrepreneurship.

26 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

3 Lower Second Class Honours 2.5 —2.99
4 Pass 2.0 —2.49

The UWI’s Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) and the Instructional Development
Coordinator (IDC) at the Open Campus trained all Open Campus Facilitators in the administration of the
GPA policy. Training is compulsory and covers the topics: 1) Fundamental mechanisms for improved
assessment practice; 2) Course assessments in the context of assessment best practices; 3) Valid and reliable
assessment practices and 4) The revised UWI GPA framework. Participants are trained in a variety of
assessment methods, guidelines and conventions for developing assessment questions, including the Table
of Specifications (TOS) or test blueprint. They also learn how to design mark schemes and assessment
rubrics.

Graduation Statistics

Table 2: Graduation Statistics during the SDEC Project Years

Certification 2016 2017 2018

Certificate Female Male Female Male Female Male
Diploma
Associate of Science 32 2 19 3 21 2
Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Education 30 3 24 1 25 1
Graduate Diploma
Master of Arts 52 6 41 5 41 4
Master of Education
Master of Science 247 54 242 31 228 38

Total 161 9 134 13 150 6

17 2 17 4 73

14 1 27 3 22 5

53 7 25 2 53 2

11 0 54 14 118 19

617 84 583 76 665 80

In academic year 2015/2016, the Open Campus graduated 701 students; in 2016/2017, graduates numbered
659 and in 2017/2018, they were 745 graduates. The number of males graduating remained at around nine
percent each year with an overall drop in the total number of graduates in 2016/2017. The Open Campus
attributed the nearly six percent drop in graduation rate between 2016 and 2017 to the impact of the
Category Five Hurricanes Irma and Maria. They significantly affected the OCCS in the Commonwealth of
Dominica, Bermuda, the British Overseas Territories and St. Kitts and Nevis. By the next year (2018),
however, the graduation figures were up by 14 percent over the 2015/2016 figure. The financial loss to the
Open Campus from the effects of the Hurricanes was some US $6M and the interruption to light and power
affected online student services.

27 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

Nonetheless, the Open Campus displayed its usual resilience and made special arrangements that minimised
the negative impact on student services. The Campus’ quick-response was enhanced by the availability of
the backup data centre, which became operational in 2015. It was one of the earliest outputs of the SDEC
project (see Figure 2). In fact, the photograph of the Commonwealth of Dominica staff and members of
the public repositioning the Open Campus’ signage in its disaster recovery operation, is iconic (see Figures
3-4) in its reflection of the historic and contemporary resilience consistently displayed by the Open Campus’
staff and students since its inception.
Additionally, the best practices developed from the experience of responding to the Hurricanes were added
to The UWI’s disaster management response strategies for which it received international recognition and
commendation.19 The UWI has also integrated these best practices into its database for making the
Caribbean the first Climate Smart Region in the world. This Climate Smart concept was integrated into the
physical infrastructure designs for the future needs of the Open Campus. The proposed physical structures
and curricula are state of the art and are environmentally, energy and sewage friendly.

Figure 1: Open Campus Graduates Celebrating their Achievements

19 In January 2019, the International Association of Universities (IAU) selected The UWI to be its global leader in the mobilisation
of research and advocacy for the achievement of a climate-smart world based on the University’s decades old research on climate
change and sustainable development (see Footnote 42 for more details).

28 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

Figure 2: Location and Equipment of the Primary Enterprise Server Data Centre

Primary Enterprise Server Data Centre housing the Software Operational Systems for the Open Campus in Miami,
Florida. The backup Centre is located in Trinidad and Tobago. Locating the Centre outside of the Region and the
backup centre in a regional country that is relatively less prone to disasters, provide contingencies for emergency
recovery in the event of an unfavourable impact on the Open Campus’ Online environment that may result from a
disaster. The Open Campus documented best practices based on its response to Hurricanes Irma and Maria in
September 2017. A survey respondent noted that continuing technology upgrade for these backup Centres needs to be
a priority for the Open Campus in the future.

29 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

Figure 3: “We Respond Appropriately to All Challenges, Including Nature’s”

Members of Staff, with help from the Public, Reposition the Open Campus’ Signage at the
Commonwealth of Dominica’s Open Campus Site after the passage of Hurricane Maria in
September 2017. Based on the experience, the Open Campus has documented disaster response
strategies, particularly to meet urgent student needs. The strategies were integrated into The UWI
Disaster Management Plan for the region. The Open Campus’ Principal is in the leadership of the
Committee responsible for the University’s Disaster Management Plan.
Staff of the Open Campus collected and distributed relief supplies to staff, students and the wider
public.

Figure 4: Reflecting another layer of resilience

30 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

New and Revised Programmes

Under the SDEC project, the Open Campus added 24 undergraduate and 13 graduate programme offers
including two taught doctorates and a doctor of philosophy. The CPE Unit, in collaboration with APAD,
also developed, with SDEC funding, 37 new CPE programmes with an associated 120 courses during the
project cycle. The CSDR developed three certificate programmes - 12 courses; the CCDC, one MPhil
/PhD programme and HSLSI, one certificate programme and the WAND two certificate programmes.

To facilitate the offering of joint programmes across Campuses as well as student articulation, The UWI
harmonises programmes within and across Campuses. This harmonisation is facilitated through the quality
assurance requirement that the development of all new programmes must include cross-campuses’
consultation. Neither the Board for Undergraduate Studies (BUS) nor the Board for Graduate Studies and
Research (BGSR) will approve programmes if the cross-campuses’ consultations are not done.

A significant achievement under the SDEC project regarding programme development was the
implementation of a methodology using a project-based approach and the development of a common-core
of subjects. The methodology reduces cost, throughput and review and revision requirements while building
a community of camaraderie and knowledge practice. Details on the methodology are discussed later.

Online Tutoring and Continual Staff Development

The UWI Open Campus achieves an exceptional best practice of providing tutor feedback to students 80
percent of the time within 24 hours. For the remaining 20 percent of the time, tutors provide feedback within
48 hours. The Programme Delivery Department (PDD) continually trains its staff, provides additional
opportunities for directed as well as self-directed professional development and requires that all staff
undergo departmental training before they begin work. Staff must also achieve a minimum of 80 percent
success rates on each training module before they are allowed to facilitate learner sessions. The SDEC
project required the (re)training of 100 percent of staff engaged in online instruction.

Human Resource Department /Staff Complement/Divisions, Roles and Functions

The Human Resource Department has overall responsibility for staff at all levels. The Open Campus
employs two categories of staff, Academic and the Senior Administrative and Professional staff (ASAP)
and the Administrative and Technical Service Staff (ATSS). The recruitment process varies according to
category. The UWI Charter, Statues, Ordinance, and the Blue Book documents the systems used for the
recruitment, selection, promotion and dismissal of ASAP personnel. The West Indies Group of University
Teachers (WIGUT) provides Union representation for ASAP staff. Within the Open Campus, the ATSS
personnel is represented under eight collective agreements, which have some similarities but vary based on
country specific requirements.

A number of committees examine, approve/disapprove the recruitment, promotion or termination of staff
at all levels. These are the Appointments Committees for ASAP and ATSS and the Evaluations and
Promotions Committee (E&PC). The E&PC is a sub-committee of the Appointments Committee. For
professorial level staff, recommendations from the (Campus) Appointments Committee go to the University
Appointments Committee for final approval. These different levels of approval provide checks and balances
for staff matters and strengthen transparency and due process.

Staff Complement and Divisions

At the end of July 2018, the Open Campus employed 548 staff members (484 permanent and 64 temporary).
At the Academic, Senior Administrative and Professional (ASAP) levels, 161 staffers were assigned and

31 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

377 at the Administrative and Technical Support Service (ATSS) level. The main office for HR
management is in Barbados and local offices are in Jamaica and in Trinidad and Tobago, where the Office
of the Director is located. The operational functions of the Trinidad and Tobago Open Campus Sites were
reviewed recently, consolidated and a country manager appointed to give oversight to all Sites’ operations.
Trinidad and Tobago has the largest number of Sites and students of all the Open Campus Site locations.

The Human Resource Department (HRD) identified the need to shift to a centralised system of human
resource management, using PeopleSoft® to enable the Open Campus to be on par with the HR services
available at the other Campuses and increase efficiencies. The software features will enable the HRD to
undertake, inter alia the online submission and approval of leave; leave balances and updating of personal
information.

The four academic divisions of the Open Campus are the Academic Programming and Delivery Division
(APAD), Open Campus Country Sites (OCCS), the Consortium for Social Development and Research
(CSDR) and the Open Campus Academy of Sport (OCAS). They work with the Quality Assurance Unit
(QAU) to plan, design, develop, approve and deliver the suite of programmes and courses offered by the
Campus through a network of collaborative interrelationships.

The programme planning, course development and course delivery functions are supported by the staff
listed in Table 3.

Table 3: Full-Time Staff Categories: Academic Divisions and Services Provided

DIVISION STAFF SERVICES

Academic Programme Lead planning and design of programmes and
Programming & Coordinators course outlines
Delivery (APAD)
Curriculum Guide the instructional process of learning and
Development content development – skilled in curriculum
Specialists
development and online instructional methodology

Multimedia Specialists Lead the development of instructional multimedia
elements/develop resources to support course
content

Production Assistants Lead page composition and formatting of course
materials for a variety of digital formats

Programme Managers Supervise/manage programme delivery in keeping
with the quality assurance requirements of the
approved programmes. Plays key role in ensuring
that programmes are delivered at a high standard,
are financially viable, and that students are satisfied
with the learning experience.

Professional Leads professional development activities for
Development Team course facilitators and PDD staff. Ensure that they
understand the Learning Management System
(LMS), content management, and course
facilitation and are actively engaged.

32 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

DIVISION STAFF SERVICES

Course Delivery Members of the team are skilled in instructional
Assistants development and online and distance learning.
They provide guidance to teaching staff for the
Open Campus Learning Support implementation of best practices in their areas
Country Sites/ Specialists responsibility.
Continuing and
Professional Programme Lead provision of online delivery services and
Education Officers/Head of Site / support to students and facilitators in the LMS to
(OCCS/CPE) Country Manager/Site promote best practice in the delivery of online and
Coordinator distance learning

Programme Managers Lead technology training and support services to
facilitators and students in the LMS
Consortium for Social Programme Officer
Lead the development and revision of CPE
Development & programmes throughout the OCCS for standardized
regional delivery
Research (CSDR)
Lead the achievement of deliverables on Special
Open Campus Academic Programme Projects programming
Academy of Sports Officers
(OCAS) Lead the development and revision of CPE and
Senate approved programmes for regional delivery-
including preparatory work for online delivery

Lead the development and revision of CPE and
Senate approved programmes for regional delivery,
including preparatory work for online delivery.

The full-time professional staff at the Open Campus are responsible for maintaining the rigorous
established high quality assurance standards, including the content and the quality of instruction. Libraries,
Information Services, the Office of the Campus Registrar, and the Computing and Technological Services
(CATS) Unit team, provide support services for the programme development staff to achieve the Open
Campus’ promise to provide excellence in teaching/ learning experiences.

Programme Delivery Staff

Programme delivery staff are part-time employees on fixed, short-term contracts for services rendered. The
Open Campus recruits staff mainly from full-time faculty at the other three UWI Campuses. They work as
course coordinators, facilitators, e-tutors and course writers. They receive training in the online teaching
environment and, as stated earlier, must attain a minimum pass grade of 80 percent on the training modules.
Their re-employment is contingent on successful achievements assessed during formative and end of
course/programme performance evaluation appraisals. The results of student and tutor surveys are also
assessed when re-employment is being considered.

33 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

Differently-abled students

The Open Campus is in the process of drafting a policy for the provision of services to differently abled
students. The student support services in the Office of the Campus Registrar has the responsibility for
developing the policy. The policy will be synchronised with the current University-wide overarching policy
on differently abled students.

Student Governance and Alumni Association

The Open Campus continued the tradition of democratic governance set by the older Campuses and has an
active Guild of Students, which articulates and represents the interest of students on governance bodies.
The Guild of students have 22 active Chapters at Open Campus Sites. The Alumni Association is also very
active and begins the process of building institutional loyalty at Student Orientation.

Strategic Direction – Environmental Scanning and Forecasting

The UWI Campuses operate under the University-wide Strategic Plan, which each Campus modifies to suit
its priority needs. In 2016/2017, the University reviewed the outgoing Strategic Plan (2012-2017) and began
the development and consultation process for the 2017-2022 strategic plan. The planning process included
University Executive Management Team (UEMT) Retreats, the formation of Campus Strategic Planning
Committees (CSPC) and cross-campus consultations. The consultative process also included cross-campus
familiarisation sessions after The UWI Council approved the strategic plan.
At the start of the strategic planning process, the Open Campus constituted teams to review and plan its
specific input into the University-wide strategic plan. The five areas prioritised by the Open Campus for its
contribution to the strategic plan and the Campus’ specific priorities were: 1) strengthening student support
services, 2) developing flexible teaching and learning programmes, 3) developing a centre for innovation
and entrepreneurship, and 4) strengthening staff morale, engagement and loyalty. The fifth initiative was
extending CPE programmes, through the establishment of a Continuing and Professional Education (CPE)
Unit. The ultimate goal of the CPE Unit is strengthening a robust Caribbean workforce (see Appendix 5 for
more details related to the Strategic Initiatives).

34 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

The UWI engages in a process of environmental scanning and forecasting to identify and develop strategies

for responding to threats and opportunities in its external environment. The entity responsible for that

function is the University Office of Planning (UOP), which reports to the Vice-Chancellery. The UOP is

responsible for four portfolios: strategic planning, institutional research, industry engagement and project

management. Under its strategic planning portfolio, the UOP prepares, implements, monitors and assesses
the University’s strategic planning. In conducting the environmental scan, the UOP implements research
activities including surveys of - undergraduate students’ end of first year experience, graduate and research
students’ experience, and employers of UWI graduates. It also analyses retention and attrition rates and

contributing factors.

Each campus conducts its own environmental scan to supplement the information gleaned from The UWI’s

UOP scan. At the Open Campus, the following entities engage in environment scan analysis: The Planning

and Institutional Research (PAIR)20

Unit, APAD, the Quality Assurance Unit

(QAU) via Quality The requirements related to timelines and Assurance (QA)
budgets experienced under the SDEC project
Reviews and demanded that the quality assurance Evaluations, the CPE
standards be stringently applied which
Unit/CPE Centre and the Business

Development Unit (BDU).

Quality Assurance resulted in improving the application of Management &
protocols, processes and procedures that

the Accreditation strengthened the institutional capacity of the Process
Campus for future growth.
A required sub-output of the SDEC project

was improvements to the management
processes for quality assurance; the Campus’

Quality Assurance Unit (QAU) was the

responsible beneficiary. During the life of the project, the Unit guided the evaluation and review of several

programmes and the operations of a number of Open Campus Sites. It developed a University-wide Online

Policy, conducted a Mid-cycle Review to meet an accreditation follow-up requirement as well as a Self-

Study Report for the re-accreditation of the Open Campus, which it received for the maximum period of

seven years.

To guide The UWI Campuses through a standardised quality assurance procedure, the University has
formalised and documented its quality management system (QMS). Additionally, it has approved a quality
policy, which is operationalised through a University-wide Quality Management Team (QMT).
Implementation of Campus-based QMTs are in the development process. A Quality Management System
Implementation Committee (QMSIC) has responsibility for the implementation of The UWI’s QMS and
Quality Policy. The Committee consists of the Deputy Principals and Campus Registrars; the PVC BUS
chairs the Committee.

The QMSIC implements the PDCA protocol: Plan, Do, Check, Act, which it applies to the administrative
as well as academic functions of the University. The PDCA protocol comprises four elements: Planning,
Implementation, Evaluation and Improvement (PIEI) and assesses and reports on how each section of the
University is performing based on the four-element protocol. The quality assurance system implemented
by The UWI to assess programmes and courses seeks to determine ‘fitness for and of purpose’ (OCSSR
2018: 295/352). A Quality Assurance Unit (QAU) exists at each Campus to implement its quality assurance
functions. The Vice-Chancellery employs the staff who report to the P-VCs of the BUS and the BGSR; a
Quality Assurance Officer (QAO) leads the Unit. Separating the quality assurance function from the control

20 At the Open Campus, PAIR monitors progress on the targets established for the strategic initiatives based on the requirements
outlined in the biennial Operational Plans.

35 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

of individual Campus’ is deliberate and is aimed at strengthening the integrity, objectivity and effectiveness
of the quality assurance process. The Open Campus’ QUA implements and standardises the University-
wide quality assurance policy within the parameters of the Open Campus’ dispersed environment and multi-
mode delivery system. The Campus’ QAU guided the review and evaluation of online programmes offered
by the APAD beginning in academic year 2013/2014 and during the life of the SDEC project, reviewed
five undergraduate and two graduate programmes, work systems and processes. In the OCCS, it reviewed
18 programmes offered face-to-face across five Sites. The planning, development and delivery faculty
participated in the review process as well as students, graduates, employers and course facilitators.

To monitor quality standards, the QAU requires that Sites submit an action plan (AP) within two months
of receiving the QAU’s evaluation report. The AP is required to state the recommendations for
improvements, the corrective actions, the responsible parties and the timelines for completion of the actions.
Sites submit annual reports describing progress on the recommendations made by the QAU and the
implementation status of the planned actions. The QAU shares the Site reports with the Campus Academic
Quality Assurance Committees (CAQAC) and Campus Academic Board (CAB). The Campus uses these
ongoing evaluations to improve operations.

The QAU has responsibility for implementing and overseeing the academic quality assurance system of
The UWI. In an effort to ensure that programme quality is maintained, the QAU requires that programmes
and courses be reviewed every five to seven years. The QAU provides documentation to guide and support
this process and monitors the implementation of the recommended changes resulting from the evaluations
and reviews.

The review and evaluation processes assist the programme development departments to enhance the quality
of programmes and courses by identifying gaps and making recommendations for their correction. During
the SDEC project, the QAU conducted over 20 Quality Assurance Evaluations (QAE) in St. Lucia,
Barbados, Antigua, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Grenada and the Commonwealth of Dominica. These
QAEs enabled the SDEC project to meet its sub-target of improving the quality assurance management of
online programmes and the review and evaluation of programme and course development.

Financing for Sustainability

The Campus is largely a self-financing entity. At inception, 62.6 per cent of the budget was met by
contributing governments and 37.4 percent by student tuition. The Open Campus, as explained earlier, was
established at an economically challenging time, regionally and globally. In spite of that formidable start,
the Open Campus displayed remarkable resilience, including its efforts to modify external funding sources.
One such source was the funding provided by the SDEC project. That grant funding enabled the Open
Campus to significantly expand programme offers and implement new technology driven business
processes to achieve a unified operational system. The Campus also established a Business Development
Unit (BDU) in 2015 to leverage the teaching/learning and research opportunities for creative and innovative
partnerships with business enterprises, NGOs and CSOs.

The Open Campus functions within the system of financial management and accounting used by The UWI.
The Budgeting process begins in October each year when the budgets for the next two financial years are
determined. The University’s financial year runs from August 1 to July 31. The University Centre supplies
the campuses with guidelines on the preparation of the budget and includes information on inflation rates
per country. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Manager, Budgets and Special Projects discuss budget
plans, justifications and availability of resources with budget holders prior to the formal submission of their
budgets through their Heads of Departments (HOD). Three to four percent increases are built into the
budgets to meet annual staff increments. Anticipated increases in recurrent expenditures such as utilities

36 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

and insurances are also included. Biennial budgets are then prepared for the review process, which is as
follows:

• Review by the CFO in consultation with the Principal
• Preparation by the Financial Office of a Campus Memorandum on Estimates of Needs (CMEN)

which includes justification for increases
• The OCLT reviews the CMEN and makes adjustments, if necessary
• The approved CMEN and biennial budgets are reviewed/ revised, if necessary, by the Vice

Chancellor, Campus Principals, Campus Bursars/CFOs, the Pro Vice-Chancellor Planning, and the
University Bursar – who finalise the University’s biennial budget
• The finalised University biennial budget is presented by the discussants to the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) for discussion /revision/approval. The TAC includes representatives of
governments of The UWI contributing countries. After, this approval of the Budget, it is
recommended to the University Grants Committee (UGC)
• The UGC reviews/approves the Budget and submits it to the University Council for final approval.
At the end of the approval process, departments/units are informed of their approved budgets
• The spending of the approved Open Campus Budget is monitored at the OCLT bimonthly meetings
• Audited Financial Statements are completed annually
• For the period ending July 31, 2017, the audited Financial statements for the Open Campus showed
net assets of BDS $57,946,200 with a surplus of BDS$18,297,181.21

Project Funding

To access adequate funding for upgrading technology systems and expand programme offers, the Campus
sometimes obtain external funding from agencies such as the CDB, GAC, and the Organisation of American
States (OAS). This report, inter alia describes how the Open Campus successfully obtained and used
funding from GAC to implement major upgrades to ICT, programming, build knowledge and skills capacity
among staff members and upgraded facilities. Additionally, as stated earlier, the Campus established the
BDU (2015) to diversify income streams by forming business partnerships with regional and international
bodies.

The agreements for funding that the Open Campus enters into link receipt of funds to project activities in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreements signed with funders/donors. Both parties
monitor projects through project reports, which include financial statements showing how funds are used
in accordance with the approved project budget and other required stipulations. Agreements include clauses
about sanctions if project requirements are not met. These sanctions could include the abolishment of the
project, funds being returned if activities are incomplete, or the imposition of other agreed on penalties.

Funding from Tuition Fees and Consolidated Resources

As stated earlier, when the Campus was founded (2008), tuition fees met approximately 40 percent of
funding. Since then, tuition fees have increased to 57 percent (2011-2012). It continues to trend upwards
closer to 60 percent. As the Campus works to diversify funding sources, the expectation is that the
proportion of the budget funded from tuition fees will increase because of increased enrolment resulting
from the offer of more labour market demand sensitive programmes. In addition, the pursuit of increased
efficiencies at the University-wide level based on the ‘One UWI Academy’ model anticipates improved
financial stability because of increasing access to consolidated University-wide resources. This strategy is

21 The exchange rate is 2 BDS$ = 1 US$

37 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

important in light of the continued economic downturn in some CARICOM countries and the unpredictable
nature of the flow of government contributions to The UWI.

Sound Financial Policies and Capacity to Sustain Programme Offers

All Campuses of The UWI adhere to financial governance arrangements documented in financial policies
and codes, financial reporting requirements, audit arrangements and budgetary processes. They are
accountable to Council via the University Finance and General Purposes Committee (UF&GPC). Based on
these arrangements and processes, the Campus and the University thrive in spite of the financial challenges
facing member countries. This achievement is due mainly to the resourcefulness of The UWI’s leadership
and the loyalty and diligence of its staff. They are firmly committed to the University’s mission of serving
all its clients and especially the under-served communities in the region.

Additionally, the Vice Chancellery and the other Campuses consistently support the needs of the Open
Campus to fulfil its strategic mandate – to increase access to tertiary and higher education levels. This
support is exemplified in the fact that, although each Campus is audited for their financial transparency,
The UWI produces consolidated financial statements of the financial activities of all the Campuses. This
consolidation of financial statements and mutual support provide stability for The UWI, which consistently
supports any Campus that needs it. The consolidation of accounts also strengthens the status of each
Campus. This status is being further strengthened as the Campuses move closer to a seamless management
of their core processes and consolidate a more secure funding model and sources of funds,

In addition, the Open Campus uses special/project funding to ensure that resources are available to maintain
the learning and teaching tools required in both the online and face-to-face environments. These special
projects make no demand on the regular operational budget. Funding for the SDEC project is an
outstanding example of this model. It is the single largest special funding made available to The UWI in
its entire 70 plus year history. The Government of Canada invested CAD $19,260,000 or 62 percent of the
SDEC project funding, which enabled the significant increase in programme offers and technical
infrastructure upgrades described throughout this document. Funds contributed by project partner, the USF
(Jamaica), which constituted 3 percent of total project funding, was used for technical infrastructure
upgrades at several Sites in Jamaica.

Additionally, at the end of 2017, the Open Campus acquired a US$3,000,000 loan from project partner, the
CDB, which was 10 percent of project funding. The Open Campus used that funding to upgrade the OCCS
in St. Vincent and the Grenadines and for additional programme development. The CSDR, in the academic
year, 2016/2017 also attracted project funding of approximately US$850,000. This funding was used by
the HSLSI to host organisational productivity related workshops, ‘The Little Leaders Programme’ and by
the CCDC to develop STEAM22 – an Early Childhood Curriculum and Training Programme and the ‘Centre
of Excellence’ Laboratory Schools (The UWI Open Campus, Annual Report 2017/2018: 27).

The CSDR also received funding from other local and international agencies, including the National Baking
Company Foundation, the American Friends of Jamaica, USAID and the European Union. Such funding
opportunities assisted in strengthening curriculum, improving facilities and updating teaching materials.

Procurement Policy

The UWI has specific policies for procurement, described in the Financial Procedures and Guidelines
(2010), Section, “Procurement Procedures and Tender Regulations”. For example, these guidelines
stipulate that at least three quotations must be received for goods and services being procured. This
requirement provides for transparency and a measure of assurance that the Campus is getting the best price

22 STEAM: Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics

38 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

and value for money. The policy makes provision for unique situations where an item or service may only
be available from a specific provider or where the lowest priced item/service may not be the best option for
the Campus. In these situations, the Campus section purchasing the goods/service must provide a rationale
supporting their decision.

In addition, the procurement approval process is governed by the level of expenditure involved. Different
levels of staff have authority to approve expenditures up to pre-established limits. The higher the amount
involved, the higher the level of authorisation that is required for approval. The procurement policy used
by the SDEC project combined GAC requirements with The UWI Policy.

Financial Reporting and Audit Arrangements

The Open Campus is required to prepare and submit interim financial accounts every four months -
November, March and July - to the University Bursar. Additionally, individual Campus’ are required to
consolidate and submit their interim accounts to the University Finance and General Purposes Committee
(UF&GPC) for their consideration, noting and approval. The OCLT discusses the financial status of the
Campus in its monthly meetings. Those meetings, inter alia consider funding, including options,
governments’ outstanding financial obligations, strategy, possible grant proposals and other financial
matters.

The Campus has a Finance Sub-Committee of Campus Council, which is responsible for strategic financial
decisions. The Campus also has an Audit Committee, which is responsible for ensuring the effectiveness
of the management and control processes. These Campus Committees report to the University Management
Audit Department (UMAD), which administratively reports to the University Bursar but directly to
University Council. This reporting relationship ensures the independence of the management audit process.
This arrangement gives UMAD the freedom to articulate the financial, operational, information technology
(IT) and governance risk of the University and its Campuses. Its duty covers all areas for which the
University Council is responsible. The UMAD also has a cooperative relationship with the QAUs, the Legal
Unit and the external financial auditors.

The UMAD uses a risk-based internal auditing and enterprise-risk-management approach to its processes.
It describes its role as: Ensuring that the processes used for identifying risks are effective and appropriately
assessed (scored) for prioritisation and evaluating the risk management process to ensure that the response
is appropriate and meets established standards, Additionally, it evaluates reported risks and ensure that
controls are operational and being monitored.

Through its Campus-based Management Auditor, UMAD conducts annual risk assessments of and prepares
reports on all Campus units. The reports outline the risk profiles of the entities, the Campus and the
aggregated risk profile of the University. The UMAD uses a four level risk rating protocol with the
descriptors - high, medium, low and opportunities for enhancement. The management audit report includes
implementation target dates.

External Auditing

The University Council annually appoints external auditors and approves their audit fees. The current
auditors are Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG) International Cooperative, which implements
globally accepted best practices. The financial year-ends on July 31 and the external audit usually begins
in September. At the end of the audit, the auditors submit a letter to the Principal of the Campus outlining
the findings, including areas requiring improvement.

39 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

Refund Policy

The Student Refund Policy, which sets out the conditions for all refunds, is accessible on the Open Campus

Website at http://www.open.uwi.edu/sites/default/files/docs/Refund_policy.pdf and is included in the

Students Handbook (pp 34-35). The Student Handbook is available on-line and in hard copy at all Open

Campus Sites. The Refund Request Form is also available on-line and may be accessed at

http://www.open.uwi.edu/sites/default/files/docs/Form-RefundRequest.pdf as well as at the Frequently

Asked Questions (FAQ) section of the Admission web-pages at

http://open.uwi.edu/admissions/undergraduate/faqs

Gift Acceptance Policy and Procedures

The University has a Gift Acceptance Policy and Procedures, which describes the terms and conditions for

acceptance of gifts and donations from individual, private and public organisations. Additionally, the

Financial Procedures Guidelines (2010) states that where the University is allowed to retain assets at the
end of projects, they “shall be brought into the accounts of the University as gifts and the net book value

on the date of transfer shall be capitalized (cited in the OCSSR 2018: 147/204).

The OCSSR (2018) concluded that the Campus’ “… management and audit process are well documented
and operationalised [and external auditors’ letters indicate] no concerns relating to the appropriateness of
its policies and capacity to sustain and ensure the integrity and continuity of programmes. The Finance
Department is well managed by highly qualified and experienced staff, with many of them holding
professional certification in the discipline. The UWI’s Financial Procedures and Guidelines are well
engrained into the practices of The UWI Open Campus” (pp. 148/205).

Task Force: Strategic Review of the Open Campus

In 2016, a Task Force, appointed by the Vice Chancellor, examined the governance structure and funding
model of the Open Campus toward strengthening the capacity and leadership of The UWI to provide on-
line, distance and outreach education to meet regional 21st century needs. Its recommendations resulted in
important shifts in the Campus’ distance education portfolio. These included ensuring appropriate
government approved presence in contributing countries, variation and sustainability of funding sources
and the inclusion of all Campuses in online programming and development as well as CPE development.

Additionally, to consolidate the offer of online programing, the University established an Office of On-line
Learning (OOL) with the responsibility of coordinating the approval and development process for online
programmes. On-line Campus Offices complement the work of the OOL. Funding from a UWI Centre
budget as well as individual Campus budgets meet the development cost of online programmes. Under this
new thrust, the Open Campus remains The UWI’s focal point for outreach and CPE services (OCSSR 2018:
17/74). The Principal of the Open Campus and the UEMT are developing a policy mandate for the

responsibilities of the OOL.

The Open Campus: Giving Leadership to the Digital Transformation of The UWI

In its 11 years of existence, the Open Campus advanced a remarkable organisation driven by technology
that centres the development of people. Its multiple local Sites make the Campus not only the regional
ambassadorial face of The UWI but also its incubator for innovation and technological growth. With its
historical outreach and community research practices based on technological innovation, recently coupled
with its computer and network modernisation, the Open Campus is giving leadership to the older Campuses
as they consider their own growth to confront 21st century digital development strategies.

The SDEC project funding enabled the Campus to provide this lead as it facilitated a rapid and
unprecedented increase in programme offers and institutional support services and is leading the adoption
of new pathways to learning. These pathways included Prior Learning Assessment Recognition (PLAR),
Programme Laddering and Continuing Education Units (CEUs) for professional and continuing education
courses and programmes.

40 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

Additionally, the Open Campus is giving leadership to the ongoing technologically driven evolution of the
Campuses toward a SVUS in which client (internal and external) services cross campus borders in a
seamless operation. A core function of the Open Campus is therefore, providing the capacity for all The
UWI Campuses to have a platform to deliver their distance learning programmes, research and other
collaborative efforts required for meeting their regional and international obligations in those
specialisations.

These leadership strategies by the Open Campus are fostering the integrated and synergistic relationship
between The UWI and participating countries as clearly stated in the Triple A Strategic Plan 2017-2022.
“[T]his plan acknowledges the symbiotic relationship between The UWI and Caribbean economies, and the
need for both to work closely together to strengthen the competitive position of regional economies. This
assumption is central to the formulation of the Triple ‘A’ Strategy” (p. 4 cited in the OCSSR 2018: 110/167).
This paired relationship is also central to the role that the Open Campus must play in realising the
development of regional economies.

Governance Structure: The UWI/Open Campus/SDEC Project

The UWI has a two-tier governance and administrative structure: Administrative governance is the
responsibility of the University Council and academic governance the responsibility of the Senate. The
Senate delegates some aspects of academic governance to the BUS and the BGSR. Campus Principals (Pro
Vice-Chancellors) are senior administrators with ultimate responsibility for the operations of Campuses.
During the life of the SDEC project, the Open Campus renamed its Campus Management Committee to the
Open Campus Leadership Team (OCLT). Team members are the Directors and other senior managers of
the Campus who assist the Principal with implementing the daily operations of the Open Campus. The
Team meets bi-monthly and its nomenclature signals its remit.

Auspiciously, the membership of the OCLT included members of the SDEC Project Management
Committee (PMC), which met quarterly or as required. The PMC guided the work of the SDEC Project
based on an evaluation of quarterly and special reports from the PMU. As the SDEC deliverables and
interconnectedness with routine Campus operations intensified, the OCLT increased its monitoring of the
project based on monthly progress updates submitted by the PMU. Periodically, the OCLT requested
exceptional reports on specialised areas of project outputs, which, in addition to written reports, sometimes
required verbal presentations by PMU personnel. On those occasions, SDEC project managers attended
OCLT meetings to make presentations. Once the PMU members concluded their agenda item, they would
leave the meetings.

A University for All

Against this backdrop, the 2018 OCSSR justifiably noted, “as a multimodal campus, The UWI Open
Campus is ideally placed to assist the University with the achievement of its Triple ‘A’ Strategy, particularly
the Access strategy. The UWI Open Campus provides learning experiences at all levels of the educational
spectrum, including seminars, workshops, continuing and professional education, undergraduate and
graduate studies… the Open Campus, more than any other Campus of The UWI, is well equipped to fulfil
the first objective of the 2017-2022 Strategic Plan, namely, “To be a university for all” (OCSSR 2018:
xliii/43). The operations of the Campus in 17 countries with a mandate to respond to local needs also
facilitate its ability to fulfil The UWI’s strategic objectives of Alignment and Agility. Towards these ends,
the Campus identified the five strategic foci, explained earlier, for implementing the Triple A Strategic Plan
2017-2022 in the Open Campus.

Conceptualising the Unsolicited Project Proposal

The original SDEC project proposal was valued at CND83M and the Campus proposed to implement it in
three phases. The GAC negotiators advised the Open Campus team to divide the request into smaller phases
and submit the requirements for the first phase. The likelihood of gaining approval for phased submissions
is greater because beneficiaries are able to demonstrate tangible successes incrementally. Demonstrated
success increases the likelihood of gaining additional support for succeeding phases. Consequently, the

41 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

Open Campus revised the proposed SDEC project and as we say, clichéd though it may be; “the rest is
history”.

CHAPTER 2: HONING THE AIMS AND OBJECTIVES FOR
SYNERGY

The SDEC project had four interrelated components: 1) Increasing Access: Developing new and renewed
programme and course offers aligned to labour market demand based on consultations with the private
sector, government and other publics. 2) Gender sensitive marketing of programmes and courses to
increase student diversity in enrolment, including gender balance and reaching previously underserved
learner populations, and 3) Building Institutional Capacity: Strengthening leadership, administrative
change management and ICT driven business processes, records management and infrastructure to improve
learner and employee support services. The fourth component was developing conceptual designs for the
future physical infrastructure needs, including ICT, for Open Campus Sites.
To achieve the interrelated components, the SDEC project implemented 16 outputs: eight related to
programme development and marketing and eight related to the implementation of the Campus’ mandate
and strategic plans, technical assistance training, ICT driven business processes and infrastructure design
for future needs. Achieving synergy among these different elements was critical to the success of the SDEC
project.

Strategic Review of SDEC’s Aims and Objectives

Strategic Review of the Aims and Objectives
The democratic, participatory and consultative processes and the detailed description of outcomes, initiated
at the conception stage of the SDEC project, set the pattern for a reflective and reflexive decision-making
methodology that was practised throughout the project’s life-cycle. The approach achieved its ultimate
purpose of gaining beneficiary buy-in and their acceptance of the responsibility - individually and
collectively, for the success of the project.

42 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

Contextualising the project goals: As stated earlier, from the inception phase of developing the concept
paper for the SDEC project, the design was carefully refined to meet the strategic development needs of the
Open Campus, The UWI and the English-speaking Caribbean Region. The development of the concept
paper into a full proposal, the negotiations and the eventual signing of the CA captured the Open Campus’
desire for long-term development. Monitoring and evaluating the activities to achieve that outcome required
an elaborate process of developing and implementing appropriate results-based management (R-BM) tools.

Preceding research provided information for developing some of the measurement tools such as the Logic
Model (LM) and the Performance Measurement Framework (PMF). This research included environmental
scans, needs’ assessments and gap analyses detailed in the Open Campus’ BDP 2012-2017. The
implementation of the BSR (2014, February) to capture the Campus’ existential reality at project start-up
also provided details for developing the PMF. The BSR also contributed to determining targets, the design
of M&E Frameworks, the type of data to be collected, data sources, reports and their frequency as well as
the parties responsible for data collection and analyses.

The BSR provided data for each indicator described in the PMF at the outcomes/results level (i.e. the
immediate-, intermediate- and ultimate-levels). The BSR was also used to provide similar information to
measure and monitor Outputs. The Open Campus used both qualitative and quantitative techniques to
measure indicators with the objective of facilitating a "before-and-after" comparison for impact assessment.
Another pre-implementation activity was developing the Project Implementation Plan (PIP), which became
the foundation document for developing the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and subsequently, the
Annual Work Plans (AWPs).

Designing, developing, documenting and implementing the associated structures, procedures and processes
for monitoring the project was not a ‘one-off’ activity. Project managers designed several of the monitoring
tools, beneficiaries were trained in the production and use and they were reviewed and updated as they were
‘tested’ in the work-environment to determine their ‘fitness for purpose’.

Participatory Democracy, Reflection on Praxis: The leadership of the Open Campus facilitated a series of
meetings with sectional heads to identify the most pressing resource needs and the most effective strategy
for designing, developing and implementing those needs, including the mobilisation of financial and other
resources. The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and sectional heads reviewed capital budgets and conducted
environmental scans to identify and cost projected needs; they documented these in the Open Campus’ BDP
2012-2017. The summary of the SWOT23 analysis that they conducted was outlined in the chapter titled
“Indicators for Sustainability in the Future (An Analysis)”. Importantly, the chapter described the current
and planned actions that addressed each challenge identified in the SWOT analysis. The chapter, titled,
“Strategic Options, Developmental Priorities and Rationale”, detailed the developmental activities,
expected results, the resource needs and the parties responsible for their implementation. A description of
the costing and the funding sources for activities concluded the BDP.

A similar consultative approach was used to develop the PIP, which was distilled from the Project Proposal,
the CA and the BSR; the Project Director, based at the Open Campus, was the chief architect of the PIP.
Information for the development of each annual work plan (AWP) was extrapolated from the PIP and
progress on each output was documented by project managers, then reviewed and revised at departmental
level consultations. The principle that drove this participatory approach, as explained earlier, was the need
for beneficiaries to understand the relevance of the project to the Open Campus’ developmental needs and
to take responsibility for the project’s success.

23 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

43 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

Consensus Decision-Making: The AWPs provided the benchmark against which progress on the
implementation of activities was monitored and evaluated. The PMU prepared the draft AWPs, which
departments later reviewed and revised. The implementation team leads facilitated the discussions on these
revisions. The PMU then integrated the feedback into a revised Draft Annual Work Plan (DAWP), which
the PMC reviewed and, if necessary, recommended revisions. The recommended changes were then
discussed by the OCLT where a final decision was made on the prioritisation of activities and the
(re)allocation of resources. The PMU then monitored the implementation of the agreed on activities. The
PMU implemented a similar cycle of discussions and approvals for all reports submitted by the Open
Campus to the GAC.

Application of the Decision-making Strategies: The responsibility for monitoring the implementation of
activities associated with each of the 16 outputs of the SDEC project was assigned to individual Team
Leads (TL) with the pertinent expertise. In turn, the TL assigned personnel with the requisite skills to
implement specific tasks, which they monitored at the departmental/sectional levels. A member of the PMU
was assigned to each team to give project management guidance and provide written reports on progress
on targets to the PMU. The PMU subsequently incorporated these reports into submissions to the OCLT,
the GAC and The UWI’s Council. On request, Special Reports were also submitted to the Jamaica National
Planning Agency/Canadian High Commission to identify the project’s impact at the individual regional
country level.

Reviewing and revising the results-based management tools: The CA sets out the reporting requirements
for the project, the type, frequency, due dates and the guidelines for the content of the reports. The
Indicators, their measurement and targets were agreed on during the negotiating phase of the Agreement.
A Team Lead in the GAC office in Canada (GAC-TM) was assigned to monitor the implementation of the
project. Subsequently, the Open Campus, in consultation with the GAC-TM, hired the Project Director to
set up, equip and staff a project management unit (PMU) within the Open Campus with a direct report to
the Office of the Principal.

The Project Director’s first task was to complete the PIP, due within 120 days after the signing of the
Agreement; she completed it in 90 days. The PIP detailed how the Open Campus intended to implement
the project. It described the methodology, timelines, required resources (human, financial, material) and the
deliverables. The document also described the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The PIP also detailed
the project design, management and governance processes, project implementation and monitoring
strategies and reporting requirements based on results. Once GAC endorsed the PIP, implementation began.

The GAC-TL worked with the Project Director and the Open Campus’ Principal and other leads - Heads of
Departments (HODs) to identify the implementation activities that would ensure the success and the
sustainability of the project. To identify the implementation activities, the Project Director consulted with
the Director of APAD, the Deputy-Directory CPE, the Director CSDR, the CFO, the Chief Information
Officer (CIO), the Campus Registrar and Campus Librarian, the Deputy-Director, Commercial Operations
and other relevant staff to collect information for developing a robust PIP. As the PIP evolved, so did the
conversations and the realisation that some of the elements of the LM/PMF needed revision to make the
outputs more context relevant. During the elaboration of the PIP, the Risk Register with mitigating
contingencies for the project was developed and integrated into the PIP and later the AWPs, which was
used as a reference point for keeping the project on target during its lifecycle.

However, while the GAC-TL and the Project Director were authorised to make changes to the project at
the activities level, only higher–level authorities could make changes at the immediate (short-term) and
intermediate (medium-term) outcome levels. Three sets of changes were made at the output levels; two
during the project start-up phase and the third and final in September 2015, Year 2 of project

44 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

implementation. Two of the three changes reduced the output categories from three to two by combining
the development of labour market demand driven programmes with developing linkages and partnerships
with the private, public and other sectors.

The second review identified all areas in which gender equality could potentially be an issue and developed
indicators for their measurement. In-house GAC personnel conducted the first two reviews, an external
expert evaluator specialising in LMs and PMFs, conducted the third, which updated and modified the PMF.
These changes resulted in the elimination of a few activities, the consolidation of others and the movement
of some others to output categories to which they were more logically associated. These changes were
mainly in the areas of marketing and the training of senior administrators and managers in business
processes related to the ERP, the EDRMS and the LIS.

Staffing Changes: Changes related to staffing, their responsibilities, sequence of hiring and the duration of
contracts were made by the Project Director. Although, the CA stipulated that three project managers (PMs)
were to be employed full-time as SMEs in the areas of curriculum development, physical infrastructure
management and ICT, the Project Director limited the hires to two. They were specialists in project
management with broad skills sets that included the areas of expertise identified for hire in the CA. The
third Project Manager was hired as the environmental specialist on a fixed contract but only for the duration
of the pre-development and development stages of the conceptual designs for physical infrastructure for the
future needs of the Open Campus.

The GES was hired full-time, instead of full-time for one year and part-time for the remainder of the project.
In addition to fulfilling her assignment as GES, she assumed the responsibility of internal monitoring and
evaluation of the project and report writing. Additionally, she developed guidelines for integrating
environmental sensitivity into curricula, physical infrastructure designs, and developing gender budgets.
She also designed a questionnaire for evaluating the effectiveness of implementing diversity concerns,
including gender, into curricula developed under the SDEC project.

The senior of the two Project Managers, who was a trained quantity surveyor, with experience in
implementing physical infrastructure projects, was assigned to extrapolate the WBS and developing the
AWPs, Gantt Charts and Work Process and Work-Flow Charts. The other project manager was an ICT
specialist; together they established structures, processes, procedures and instruments to monitor the
implementation of project activities.

Monitoring meetings: Good communication structures and processes were the cornerstone of the
successful M&E practices implemented under the SDEC project. The communication tools and processes
included weekly, bi-weekly and monthly meetings with HODs whose section/units were project
beneficiaries. The number of meetings varied based on the frequency, complexity and life-cycle of
activities. The tendency was for the frequency of meetings to be higher in the planning and early stages of
implementing activities. As implementation became more routine and the learning-curve less intense, the
number of meetings were reduced.

Departmental teams, taking their lead from the AWPs, would develop action plans (APs), which were used
to guide the implementation of activities for which they were responsible. The APs detailed implementation
activities, identified and allocated resources, established schedules, data collection type, sources and
analyses. The plans also identified responsible parties and reporting requirements for monitoring the
implementation of activities. Progress on these APs were the point of departure for the departmental
meetings with the project managers. Team members gave attention to challenges relating to human resource
needs and scheduling and redeployed resources as required to achieve targeted results.

45 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

Weekly PMU Meetings: The PMU met weekly where staff reported on progress on outputs. These reports
were later integrated into monthly and or special reports to the OCLT. Reports on the SDEC Project was a
recurring item on the OCLT agenda.

Transparency & Accountability in the SDEC Communication System

Governance and Communication Structure for the SDEC Project
To promote good governance, transparency and accountability, the SDEC project had five layers of
communication and project monitoring and operational procedures and policies. These adhered to The
University of the West Indies and Canada’s regulations and requirements. The operational layers were the
Project Steering Committee (PSC), the Project Management Committee (PMC), the GAC Sector Monitor,
the Programme Advisory Committees (PACs) and the Project Management Unit (PMU). Using a system
of consultation and the review and approval of reports and budgets, the governance process ensured that
the SDEC project was implemented, monitored and evaluated to optimise the use of project resources. The
organogram in Figure 5 indicates the positions and responsibilities that were included in the Project’s
governance and communication structure.
The Project Steering Committee (PSC) provided strategic guidance and gave policy directives throughout
the life of the project. Membership included the Open Campus (Principal as Co-Chair), the Universities of
Guyana and Anton de Kom (Suriname) and private and public sector representation. It met annually to
review and approve the PIP, AWPs, Reports and Budgets. The first meeting occurred after the inception
mission and the approval of the PIP, and annually thereafter and, as required. The final meeting was held
in Barbados in May 2019 when the Committee received and approved the Final Report covering the project
implementation period April 1, 2014 – June 30, 2019. It also approved project completion parameters.

Figure 5: The SDEC Project - Organogram

Project
Management
Unit

Figure 5: Organogram indicating the five layers of communication in the SDEC Project that facilitated
accountability in decision-making.

46 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

GAC Sector Monitor: An external reviewer/monitor for the education sector employed by GAC, and
working out of the GAC Regional Office in Barbados, reviewed and provided feedback to the PMU on the
Mid-Year Reports (M-YR), Annual Reports (AR) and the AWP and Budget. In the final Year of project
implementation, the sector monitor conducted a beneficiary analysis of the impact of the SDEC project by
reviewing relevant documents, and administering and analysing surveys. These surveys were primarily used
to assess the Open Campus’ capacity to sustain the successful outcomes of the SDEC project. In addition
to a capacity assessment, the surveys requested that respondents list the resources needed short-, medium-
and long-term. The Sector Monitor also asked research participants to assess the capacity of the Campus to
implement future activities successfully. The results of the surveys are integrated into the resource needs
identified in Chapter 6, Table 8.

The PMC was an internal management group with representatives from the project beneficiary divisions,
departments, and units in The UWI Open Campus. It met quarterly, or as required and reviewed and
recommended revisions to project activities. Quarterly Reports, M-YRs, AWPs and Budgets and ARs were
also reviewed by the PMC and changes recommended where appropriate. The PMC met less frequently
during the final year of project implementation, when M&E activities were intensified. Instead, the PMU
assigned Task Forces to provide concentrated monitoring of the implementation of each activity. The PMU
considered this level of scrutiny necessary because of the pressing need to conclude activities on schedule
– March 31, 2019. This intensified monitoring at the departmental level meant that the PMC had less M&E
functions as the project was ending.

The PMU, which was established in July 2013, provided daily oversight of project activities throughout
the project’s life-cycle. Members of the Unit met frequently with Implementation Teams to assess progress
on targets. Project Managers gave special attention to assessing how outputs contributed to the
achievements of the immediate and intermediate outcomes. The PMU’s responsibilities included detailed
project planning, operational and financial management, procurement, and monitoring and reporting on
behalf of the Open Campus.

Programme Advisory Committees (PACs): The Open Campus established PACs to recommend and review
programme and course offers – relevance, potential demand, structures and content material - to achieve
greater alignment between offers and labour market needs. The Committees had private, public sector,
NGO and other civil society representatives. Their recommendations were integrated into revising
programme and course offers. Once programmes and courses were developed, members of the Committees
shifted their attention to assisting with promotional marketing of the programmes at the individual country
level.

Project policies and operational functions: A suite of policies, processes and operational protocols were
implemented to promote due diligence, transparency and accountability. These protocols were designed to
ensure that activities were compatible with GAC and Open Campus’ regulations. Protocols included
procurement procedures, travel and hiring policies.

The foundation piece for the communication strategy was the AWPs, which were organically linked to the
PIP, the Open Campus’ Strategic Initiatives, Operational Plans, mandate, and the University-wide Strategic
Plans. The AWP described the planned activities to be undertaken and delivered yearly and the associated
resource requirements. It also set out the Gantt chart that was used as a primary monitoring tool for mapping
and keeping activities on schedule.

With the exception of the OCLT’s involvement, the communication system for the development, review
and revision of reports was similar to the communication process described earlier in Figure 5. The PMU
staff initiated the process for the writing, review and revision of reports. They would begin by drafting
reports based on the implementation of the AWPs and the consultation meetings they had with departmental
HODs and or teams. The departments later reviewed and revised the sections of the reports for which they

47 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

were directly responsible. The implementation team leads (ITLs) facilitated the discussions on the
reviews/revisions of reports. Once returned, the PMU staff integrated the feedback into a revised Draft
Report which the PMC reviewed and, if necessary, recommended revisions. The CCLT discussed and
endorsed, or not, the recommendations and revisions made by the PMC. The PMU integrated these final
recommendations into a Final Draft Report, which the PMU then submitted to GAC [local Team Lead] for
review and recommended changes. If GAC had changes, the PMU would revise the reports and re-submit.

The cycle of discussions and approvals were similar for all reports prepared by the PMU for the Open
Campus to submit to the GAC. The communication process enabled project beneficiaries to contribute to
decision-making, resource allocation, the review of draft reports and to monitor progress on targets. To
facilitate this communication process, as stated earlier, the PMU staff participated in scheduled meetings
with project beneficiaries. The schedule of meetings in which draft reports were also reviewed is reflected
in Figure 6.

Figure 6: SDEC Project Meeting Schedules for Internal Monitoring

HODs weekly or
as

Required

PMU PMC
Weekly or as Quarterly or as

Required Required

OCLT
bi-monthly

Figure 6: Approval Rounds in the Open Campus for the SDEC Project Reports before submission to GAC. The PMU
would initiate the circulation/discussion with HODs, revise the reports based on recommended changes and then
submit them to the PMC. If decisions were inconclusive or needed the input of higher authority, the OCLT would
discuss and conclude the matter. The PMU would then revise and submit the draft report to GAC for review, feedback
and revision. The PSC reviewed and approved Annual Reports and budgets.

The Project Manager as Active Participant
The role played by the SDEC project managers is singled out for mention because they not only facilitated
a process that encouraged beneficiaries to take action but also complemented their actions by filling
knowledge and skills gaps where appropriate. Consequently, where these gaps existed, which project
managers could fill, they offered their assistance and followed through if the offer was accepted. While
some purists regard this project management approach as faulty, it adds value to an environment that may
be experiencing a shortfall in required project attributes. Developing and emerging economies may have
specific needs for this style of project management.

The necessary and important caution is that the methodology should only be used if necessary; and if the
beneficiary entity agrees to accept the offer, based on their recognition of its usefulness. Simultaneously,
they should provide an understudy for the project manager to facilitate skills transfer. The project manager

48 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

would facilitate mentoring, coaching or shadowing to ensure that when she/he departs the beneficiary entity
has learned those skills.

Within the SDEC project, managers played this specialist role in some Departmental Project Teams,
especially those concerned with ICT activities, marketing and PLA. Project managers also played
specialised roles on the teams responsible for formulating and implementing Request for Proposals (RFPs),
reviewed bids and participated in shortlisting vendors, vendor conferences, interviews and vendor selection.
They also contributed to the development and writing of Scope of Works (SOWs), Terms of References
(ToRs), and evaluating and weighting the selection of Bidders. If required, they also participated in
negotiating contracts, the monitoring of contract implementation and the payment of contractors.

This responsive approach to meeting the knowledge and skills gaps in the Open Campus reflected a high
level of flexibility on the part of the departmental teams as well as the supportive role played by the PMU.
This management approach – shared responsibility - resulted in decisions that guaranteed the best outcomes
for the Open Campus.

Using technology to enhance communication in a dispersed environment: The dispersed nature of the
Open Campus (50 sites in 17 countries) at times posed communication and implementation challenges for
the project. Strategies for managing these challenges relied on the use of the technological capability of the
Campus supported by the efforts of a dedicated and self-sacrificing core of staff. Consequently, when
bottlenecks arose, project beneficiaries, in collaboration with the PMU staff, formed sub-committees that
provided deeper analyses of issues and made changes that resulted in their reduction or elimination. One
such example was the ERP Escalation Committee that the OCLT established to improve communications
between the ERP Implementation Team and the OCLT.

This reflexive approach to M&E meant that internal expertise provided ongoing formative evaluations that
resulted in a seamless transition between analysis, critical reflection and the taking of corrective action. The
methodology not only provided the best outcome for beneficiaries but strengthened internal M&E
capabilities in the Open Campus for application to future projects. As stated earlier, the AWPs were the
foundation document for implementing M&E to which the outputs and activities listed in the PMF, LM,
and WBS were extrapolated.

Operationalising the Contribution Agreement: Developing the PIP and other M&E
Tools

As stated earlier, the PIP was the foundation document that breathed life into the project and therefore
needed to be completed and approved before implementation could begin. It detailed how the project would
be implemented. Key elements of the PIP were extrapolated and expanded in each AWP. Different elements
of the AWP were assigned to different members of the PMU team, who worked with departmental teams
to successfully conclude deliverables. For big-ticket items, the Financial Officer (FO) also sat on those
Committees to give closer oversight to budget requirements and expenditures.

Once the HODs/TLs were clear on what was required of them, they took the request back to their
Departments, identified the resource needs required to meet the deliverables, and as stated earlier,
developed action plans. Some resource needs included hiring external experts and purchasing equipment
and supplies. Obtaining those resources often resulted in a revision of due dates, several of which were
affected by externalities outside of the control of the SDEC project. In fact, in its concluding evaluation of
the project, the PMU staff identified these two factors as the major cause of rescheduling of project
deliverables throughout the life of the project.

49 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”

Once the departments and the PMU staff agreed on action plans, the project managers developed workflow
charts and process diagrams, which allowed them to track progress on deliverables in more detail, always
being mindful of the results identified in the LM and PMF. Microsoft Excel Project Professional™ was the
main tracking tool used by project managers for mapping progress on each task. The software enables the
identification of each task, the duration, the start and end dates, the predecessors or sub-tasks, the resource
pool, the resources assigned, and their use within timeframes. The level at which resources were assigned
and which tasks were over- or under-resourced were also identified.

Armed with those M&E tools, the project managers worked with TLs to keep the project schedule on track.
After each meeting, the project managers in consultation with the TLs developed Action Items, which they
then used to follow-up on task completion. As stated earlier, the reports generated from these consultations
were advanced through the communications channel described in Figures 5 and 6.

The OCLT meeting was where the HODs had an opportunity to convince the leaders (most of whom were
also members of the PMC) of the priority and resource needs of their departmental obligations under the
project. These were the meetings in which resource re-allocation and major re-scheduling occurred. The
discussions surrounding these decisions were conducted in an amicable manner, no rancour, no rivalry; the
driving force was the mission-driven need for the entire project to succeed. This meant that potential inter-
departmental rivalry surrendered to the needs of the whole Campus.

Arriving at such consensus-decision making necessitated patience, excellent listening skills, identifying
when opinions were sufficiently aired and therefore, when the time for decision-making had arrived. This
process required an appropriate repertoire of leadership skills; mainly those that modelled desired
behaviour. The PMU’s final evaluation also concluded, inter alia that a very strongpoint of the project was
leadership’s display of those transformational qualities, which set the example that line-staff emulated. It
also set the tone for the high level of achievements, which resulted in project outputs exceeding expectations
and targets on several elements.

Liaison with donor agencies: Externally, the first point of contact for the PMU was the GAC-TM located
in the GAC Office in Canada. The GAC-TL communicated frequently with the Project Director regarding
progress on outcomes, remaining faithful to the PMF requirements, staffing requirements, budget
drawdowns and expenditure. They also gave oversight to matters concerning policy changes such as
finalising the rates for sub-contractors with an arms-length relationship to the project.24

The next level of contact was the Project Team Lead (P-TM) in the GAC Regional Office in Barbados.
They reviewed annual reports and provided detailed feedback to ensure compliance with the CA
requirements. They also provided technical support by articulating policy change requirements to the GAC
Head Office in Canada and made representations such as Budget amounts, drawdowns and budget policy.
They also played a role in mobilising partner obligations under the CA.

24 For example, Open Campus employees sub-contracted as curriculum development specialists were paid 15 percent less than
the market-rate; this policy sought to avoid beneficiary ‘over-compensation,’ while maintaining transparency and accountability.

50 | P a g e “ O p e n i n g D o o r s t o L i f e C h a n g i n g L e a r n i n g . ”