Table 1
Conceptual Framework.
| AREA OF INQUIRY | CONCEPTS | DATA POINTS |
|---|---|---|
| Basic information about the case | Organisation type, size of user base, OER offer, key challenges faced. | |
| Strategic focus | ‘Defenders and prospectors’ indicators (Miles & Snow, 1978) (Table 2) | Products & services; target group(s); advantage of approach; sustainability & revenue; network; communication channels; value added – for each aspect ‘defender’ or ‘prospector’ is selected. |
| Business model(s) & sustainability | The ENCORE+ OER business model typology is synthesized from Tlili et al. (2020); Padilla Rodriguez et al., (2018); Belleflamme & Jacqmin (2015); Ubachs & Konings (2016); and Farrow (2019). | The ENCORE+ business model typology (Farrow, 2023) describes 14 types (Table 5). |
| Pedagogy & technology | A free text field to describe pedagogical approaches and technologies employed. A list of technologies based on Orr et al. (2018) was provided. | |
| OER implementation | The SAMR framework (Puentedura, 2006) (Table 3) Darwish’s (2019) model of ‘edupreneurship’ (Table 3) | Selecting which stage of OER implementation best reflects the case: substitution, augmentation, modification, or redefinition. These are conceptually mapped to the four stages of Darwish’s model (static; interactive; dynamic; transformative) |
| Stakeholders | ENCORE+ ‘ecosystem’ model for OER stakeholders | UPIG stakeholder model (users, providers, influencers, governance) as a general model provides categories that apply across cases (Figure 3) |
| Barriers and enablers | 27 possible barriers to OER innovation indicated (with facility to add bespoke descriptions) organised into the following categories: practitioner level; organization level; evidence base; technology & infrastructure; community; other | |
| Culture and process | Entrepreneurial and innovation culture in higher education and technology-enhanced learning (Zhu, 2015; Herbig & Dunphy, 1998) | 5 point Likert agreement/disagreement scale for a range of institutional and cultural indicators |
| Impact & diffusion | Diffusion of innovations (Rogers, 2003) | Innovation vectors (relative advantage, compatibility, simplicity, trialability, observability) identified for each stakeholder type (where relevant) (Figure 3) Questions evaluating the perception of success of the OER implementation |
Table 2
Conceptual framing for strategic focus (based on Miles & Snow, 1978).
| CORE ASPECTS | DEFENDER-LIKE APPROACH | PROSPECTOR- LIKE APPROACH |
|---|---|---|
| Products and services | Focus on core institutional educational provision | Focus on provision which is complementary or alternative |
| Target group | Existing markets/learners | New (or nontraditional) markets/learners |
| Communication channels | Traditional | New or innovative channels (physical or virtual) |
| Legacy or new value chain | Making the most of legacy knowledge | Exploration of new approaches and innovation |
| Competitive advantage | Traditional competences (e.g., market knowledge, expertise, improvement of existing technology) | Newer, unfamiliar, competences (e.g., new or emerging technologies, innovation in working practices) |
| Networks | Traditional institutional or cultural | Nontraditional or (dynamic) networks (e.g., alliance, joint-venture) |
| Profitability and sustainability | Cost cutting and efficiencies | New processes to generate revenues, or cost-cutting in existing processes |
Table 3
Conceptual Framing for OER implementation.
| SAMR MODEL (PUENTEDURA, 2006) | OER EDUPRENEURSHIP MODEL (DARWISH, 2019) |
|---|---|
| Substitution: OER substituted for proprietary content with no functional change | Static: This model is content-based (content aggregation & curation) for supplementary use (e.g. repositories, libraries & courseware) |
| Augmentation: Substitution of OER for proprietary content with functional change or task redesign | Interactive: Courses/products for self-study & blended learning (xMOOCs, Edutainment & Games) |
| Modification: OER use allowed for significant redesign of tasks or functions associated with teaching/learning | Dynamic: Online courses/blended learning; learning management system(s) |
| Redefinition: Using OER allowed for new ways of conceiving teaching and/or learning | Transformative: platform with interactive learning environment(s) aligned to marketplace needs |
Table 4
ENCORE+ UPIG stakeholder model and innovation vectors.
| RELATIVE ADVANTAGE(PERCEIVED AS BETTER THAN COMPETITION) | COMPATIBILITY(UNDERSTOOD IN RELATION TO EXISTING PRACTICE) | SIMPLICITY(EASY TO PICK UP THE NEW SERVICE OR PRODUCT) | TRIALABILITY(EASE WITH WHICH TARGET MARKETS CAN TRY SERVICE OR PRODUCT) | OBSERVABILITY(RESULTS ARE VISIBLE OR NOTICEABLE) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Users (learners/educators or customers) | |||||
| Governance (management, steering groups, regulators, etc.) | |||||
| Influencers (policymakers, investors, media, trade unions, etc.) | |||||
| Providers (educators, trainers, suppliers, vendors, etc.) |
Table 5
ENCORE+ OER Business Model Typology (Farrow, 2023).
| CATEGORY | BUSINESS MODEL | REVENUE DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|---|
| Externally funded | Donations Model | Funding from donations or grants, e.g., foundations, society, industry, non-governmental agencies |
| Governmental Model | National and international governmental agencies providing funding for OER | |
| Sponsorship/Advertising Model | Generating revenue by exposing learners to commercial messages | |
| Internally funded | Institutional Model | Higher education providers setting aside some part of their budget for OER programmes |
| Substitutions Model | Cost savings from redundant services (e.g. obsolete systems) are redirected towards OER programmes | |
| Author pays Model | Publishers generate revenue by charging content creators | |
| Community funded | Community based | Members of a community or network collaboratively create and use OER, generating revenue through services and/or infrastructure |
| Membership Model | The Membership model relies on organizations contributing to the OER provider with money, services and/or goods | |
| Platformization | Organises (paying) stakeholders around a digital ecosystem, facilitating interaction and generating insights | |
| Higher Education Service Models | Data Exploitation Model | Generates revenue by selling analytic data about the activities of those using a learning environment |
| Dual-Mode University | Use of OER in an online course (e.g. Massive Open Online Course) to develop a distance learning or virtual university operation | |
| Freemium | Educational materials are offered for free and sustainability is derived from subsequent income streams offered alongside this (e.g. assessment or access to a larger curriculum) | |
| Online Programme | Extending presence-based education to online or blended courses and related services | |
| Segmentation Model | Commercializing a service relating to OER (such as printing open textbooks; providing assessment or certification of learning) |
Figure 1
Geographical spread of the cases.
Table 6
Interpretation of effect size (Cramer’s V).
| EFFECT SIZE | INTERPRETATION |
|---|---|
| ES ≤ 0.2 | The result is weak. Although the result is statistically significant, the fields are only weakly associated. |
| 0.2 < ES ≤ 0.6 | The result is moderate. The fields are moderately associated. |
| ES > 0.6 | The result is strong. The fields are strongly associated. |
Table 7
Cross-referencing size and type of case.
| PROJECT (N = 19) | INITIATIVE (N = 12) | INSTITUTION (N = 7) | BUSINESS (N = 1) | OTHER (N = 5) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| International (54.8%) | 10 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| Macro (16.7%)(national) | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Meso(regional) (7.1%) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Micro (institutional) (21.4%) | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Table 8
Cross-referencing size and duration of the cases.
| +5 YEARS | 3–5 YEARS | 1–2 YEARS | 6–12 MONTHS | 0–3 MONTHS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| International | 13 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Macro | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Meso | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Micro | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Table 9
Most frequently cited challenges for OER innovation at different size levels.
| INTERNATIONAL (N = 23) | MACRO (N = 6) | MESO (N = 5) | MICRO (N = 8) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st challenge | Budget & finance | Building awareness | Budget & finance | Building awareness |
| 2nd challenge | Building awareness | Time pressure | Changing culture/practices | Changing culture/practices |
| 3rd challenge | Changing culture/practices | Changing culture/practices | Building awareness | Budget & finance |
Figure 2
Strategic Approach: Prospectors and Defenders (N = 44).
Figure 3
Business model typologies in the cases (n = 42).
Figure 4
Revenue models correlated with primary SAMR OER implementation (n = 43).
Table 10
Cross-referencing between stakeholders addressed and size of the cases.
| Nº STAKEHOLDER CATEGORIES ADDRESSED (UPIG) | INTERNATIONAL (N = 23) (%) | MACRO-LEVEL (N = 7) (%) | MESO-LEVEL (N = 5) (%) | MICRO-LEVEL (N = 9) (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 52.2 | 0 | 40 | 55.6 |
| 3 | 21.7 | 42.9 | 40 | 11.1 |
| 2 | 21.7 | 14.3 | 20 | 22.2 |
| 1 | 0 | 28.6 | 0 | 11.1 |
| 0 | 4.3 | 14.3 | 0 | 0 |
Table 11
Cross-referencing stakeholders addressed and OER implementation.
| Nº STAKEHOLDERS ADDRESSED (UPIG) | SUBSTITUTION (N = 4) (%) | AUGMENTATION (N = 8) (%) | REDEFINITION (N = 14) (%) | MODIFICATION (N = 18) (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 25 | 25 | 50 | 55.6 |
| 3 | 25 | 50 | 14.3 | 16.7 |
| 2 | 50 | 25 | 21.4 | 11.1 |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 7.1 | 11.1 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11.1 |
Figure 5
Barriers (%) for OER Innovation.
Figure 6
Enablers (%) for OER innovation.
Table 12
Organisational culture and innovation processes (ranked by mean).
| INDICATOR | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | MEAN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Innovation is clearly aligned to our organisational strategies | 41% | 35.9% | 20.5% | 2.6% | – | 4.15 |
| Our staff are empowered to develop their capacity for innovation | 39.5% | 28.9% | 26.3% | 5.3% | – | 4.03 |
| My organisation is open to new and innovative approaches | 41% | 28.2% | 20.5% | 10.3% | – | 4.00 |
| Innovation activity is a part of daily activity tasks in this organisation | 34.2% | 28.9% | 26.3% | 10.5% | – | 3.87 |
| Our leaders recognise the innovation achievements of our staff | 31.6% | 36.8% | 21.1% | 7.9% | 2.6% | 3.87 |
| Our organisation is committed to a continuing and meaningful evaluation of best practices | 25.6% | 41% | 23.1% | 7.7% | 2.6% | 3.79 |
| Leadership provide clear guidance on innovation strategy | 30.8% | 28.2% | 23.1% | 15.4% | 2.60 | 3.69 |
| Our organisation captures, documents and shares ideas from diverse roles | 20.5% | 43.6% | 17.9% | 17.9% | – | 3.67 |
| Management provide the time and space needed to develop and implement ideas | 25.6% | 30.8% | 23.1% | 20.5% | – | 3.62 |
| We apply best practices to the flow of information within our organisation | 15.4% | 43.6% | 28.2% | 7.7% | 5.1% | 3.56 |
| We apply agile approaches to meet challenges | 20.5% | 23.1% | 38.5% | 15.4% | 2.6% | 3.44 |
| Our organisation has clearly identified innovation champions | 12.5% | 32.5% | 37.5% | 12.5% | 5% | 3.35 |
| Our decision making is middle-out | 5.4% | 37.8% | 37.8% | 16.2% | 2.7% | 3.27 |
| Our organisation responds quickly to adopt/adapt new ideas and approaches | 23.1% | 15.4% | 25.6% | 30.8% | 5.1% | 3.21 |
| Our decision making is top-down | 17.9% | 23.1% | 23.1% | 28.2% | 7.7% | 3.15 |
| Our decision making is bottom-up | 10.8% | 21.6% | 35.1% | 24.3% | 8.1% | 3.03 |
| We have systems in place to recognise and reward innovation behaviours | 5.1% | 33.3% | 28.2% | 23.1% | 10.3% | 3.00 |
| We have a management system for tracking innovation | 5.1% | 7.7% | 43.6% | 38.5% | 5.1% | 2.69 |
| Key performance indicators (KPIs) are used to track and analyse innovation behaviours | 7.9% | 13.2% | 31.6% | 31.6% | 15.8% | 2.66 |
Table 13
Dependency between business models and strategic foci (barriers).
| BUSINESS MODEL | BARRIER |
|---|---|
| Community-based | –Responding to authentic learners’ needs –Social context |
| Platformisation | –Responding to authentic learners’ needs –Social context –Research & practice links |
| Governmental | –Stakeholders’ relationships –Research & practice links |
Table 14
Variables affected by attributes of stakeholder value propositions.
| STAKEHOLDER | ATTRIBUTE OF INNOVATION (YES/NO) | VARIABLE | CATEGORY | ES |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Users | Observability (YES) | Enabler | Regulatory environment | 0.654 |
| Governance | Relative advantage (NO) | Barrier | Policy change (external) | 0.654 |
| Providers | Observability (YES) | Barrier | Relevance & replicability | 0.516 |
| Governance | Trialability (NO) | Enabler | Quality of evidence | 0.516 |
| Users | Compatibility (YES) | Size | Micro-level | 0.494 |
| Providers | Observability (YES) | Strategy | Products & services (prospectors) | 0.494 |
| Users | Observability (NO) | OER Implementation | Redefinition | 0.474 |
| Governance | Observability (YES) | Enabler | Policy change (internal) | 0.467 |
| Users | Compatibility (NO) | Type of case | Initiative | 0.465 |
| Users | Observability (YES) | OER Implementation | Modification | 0.46 |
| Users | Compatibility (YES) | Strategy | Products & services (prospectors) | 0.454 |
| Providers | Trialability (YES) | Barrier | Open Educational Practices | 0.417 |
| Users | Observability (YES) | Enabler | Stakeholders’ relationships | 0.412 |
| Providers | Compatibility (YES) | Barrier | Our skills | 0.408 |
Table 15
Dependency of enablers with SAMR, strategy and diffusion of innovations.
| ENABLERS | TYPE OF OER IMPLEMENTATION | INNOVATION STRATEGY | DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attitudes in the organisation | Modification | — | — |
| Awareness of issues | — | — | Relative Advantage (YES) |
| Decision processes | — | Target group (defender) | — |
| Personal characteristics | — | Target group (defender) | Observability (NO) |
| Our skills | — | — | Trialability (NO) |
| Organisational culture | — | Target group (defender) Products and services (defender) | — |