Very good description of the advancements and challenges of a modern technology-based organisation (most of them? E.g., banks are as much IT as they're finance).
What would these ideas lead to if applied to the university sector?
Who are the developers (who produce "features" for those outside the organisation)?
Who are the Q&A /production monitoring/rule enforcement/etc. team?
How can the system change to be less bureaucratic and more agile (in the sense that good features reach the target audience faster)?
What does it produce, for whom external stakeholder? = "Features"
Who does it? = "Developer"
Who runs it? = "Production"
Etc.
To me, teaching is just one product of a university. And possibly not the most important one. The most important product and the reason for which they were created in the first place, is scholarship and research. Teaching is a way to prime the pump with new scholars and to make a bit of money on the way by educating those who want to learn from scholars (so supposedly at the top of their game, sometimes just for the added prestige), instead of going to some teaching-only college. Many who've studied at a university (politicians trying to manage them included) seem to think of it as just a slightly more advanced secondary school but it ain't one. See how people react when you tell them that you're teaching two to three 20-hour lectures a year - "and what do you do the rest of the time?!?"
At the end, the question isn't just about universities but any organisation (and maybe even parts of them when viewed as a smaller system) - how can lessons learnt from CI/CD etc be applied to what they're doing?
And same for any other system advancement, from any sector - try to find the principles, see if they apply in different contexts and how we could take advantage of them to improve these other contexts too.
Very good description of the advancements and challenges of a modern technology-based organisation (most of them? E.g., banks are as much IT as they're finance).
What would these ideas lead to if applied to the university sector?
Who are the developers (who produce "features" for those outside the organisation)?
Who are the Q&A /production monitoring/rule enforcement/etc. team?
How can the system change to be less bureaucratic and more agile (in the sense that good features reach the target audience faster)?
At first I thought you meant the IT departments of universities, but on second read, are you trying to analogize deployments to learning/classes?
The whole university.
What does it produce, for whom external stakeholder? = "Features"
Who does it? = "Developer"
Who runs it? = "Production"
Etc.
To me, teaching is just one product of a university. And possibly not the most important one. The most important product and the reason for which they were created in the first place, is scholarship and research. Teaching is a way to prime the pump with new scholars and to make a bit of money on the way by educating those who want to learn from scholars (so supposedly at the top of their game, sometimes just for the added prestige), instead of going to some teaching-only college. Many who've studied at a university (politicians trying to manage them included) seem to think of it as just a slightly more advanced secondary school but it ain't one. See how people react when you tell them that you're teaching two to three 20-hour lectures a year - "and what do you do the rest of the time?!?"
At the end, the question isn't just about universities but any organisation (and maybe even parts of them when viewed as a smaller system) - how can lessons learnt from CI/CD etc be applied to what they're doing?
And same for any other system advancement, from any sector - try to find the principles, see if they apply in different contexts and how we could take advantage of them to improve these other contexts too.