Transformation of Corporate Business
Master in Digital Transformation -
Curriculum
The curriculum targets future leaders and implementers of digital change in the corporate world. It encompasses technological, management and entrepreneurial components and puts high emphasis on change management and co-operation with the corporate sector.
It outlines a.o.
- learning outcomes
- module content
- soft skills focus
- learning setups
- cross-links between modules and with projects
- ethical issues addressed
The format was deliberately kept in overview mode in order to make cross-links and coherence transparent.
Learning for Digital Transformation
- How can we teach/learn about Digital Change?
- Which skills are most relevant?
- How to mix technology and management concepts?
- How to integrate academic study and industrial practice?
The learning outcomes and objectives of the degree

Taxonomy - Skills Levels

Content areas of the degree

Organizational requirements and constraints
3 locations |
Maximum of mobilities |
Manageability |
No or low tuition fees |
Rotation model 1: Starting/enrolling at one location, full cohort rotation

- Capacity required from each university - 5 modules once a year;
- Problem: If program starts at A – will only A students apply? Diversity of students in class?
- Students study in three locations, blended learning/training and virtual collaboration may ease rotation.
Rotation model 2: Starting/enrolling at two locations at the same time

- 60 ECTS in capacity required from each university – A and B offer 2 identical sets of 5 modules over two terms; C offers 2 identical sets of 5 modules in one term
- Term 2: 1-2 modules could be taught as blended learning classes to train collaboration
- Problem: If A/B start, will only A/B students apply?
- Students study in three locations.
Rotation model 3: Starting/enrolling at two locations at the same time, but only one change of location

- 60 ECTS in capacity required from each university – A and B offer 2 distinct sets of 5 modules over two terms; C offers 2 identical sets of 5 modules in one term
- Term 2: 1-2 modules could be taught as blended learning classes to train collaboration
- Problem: If two semesters run at A or B, will only A/B students apply? Will this make C a minor partner?
- Students study in only two locations.
Rotation model 4: Starting/enrolling at one location, then two changes of location

- 60 ECTS in capacity required from each university – A runs 2 identical sets of 5 modules in same term, B and C offer 2 identical sets of 5 over two terms
- Term 2: 1-2 modules could be taught as blended learning classes to train collaboration
- Problem: If A is the only entry gate, will mostly A students apply?
- Students study in three locations.
Rotation model 5: Starting/enrolling at three locations at the same time

- Capacity required from each university: two sets of 5 modules over a year; each university runs identical modules each term;
- Terms 2 and 3: 1 to 2 modules to be taught as blended learning classes to train collaboration.
- Students study in three locations.
Option 3 scenario: building up enrolment over a time sequence

Overview of rotation models

Overview of sequencing options

The choice for the degree: simplicity and manageability
After weighing the options, the consortium decided to adopt model 1 as the most suitable option on the basis of these considerations:
- As of now, the consortium members don’t feel they have enough experience and capacity to sustain more ambitious models (3, 4 or 5).
- Main decision-making factors should be clarity and student guidance, which are best addressed by mapping out a linear and universal pathway.
- Variations offering more choices may be introduced at a later stage.
- Response from capacity planners and deans at our faculties has shown that we should communicate clear capacity requirements especially at launch stage. As any capacity burden is scrutinized and checked against other priorities, the workload and curriculum message sent should be clear and readable. More complex design should wait till the program has proved to be successful and manageable.
Demand – how is learning to be organized?
The CHEDTEB consortium has, through original and desktop research, recorded high demand expressed by companies for change-driving staff educated in open and innovative learning environments.
This has produced two typical reactions at university / faculty level:
- Churning out (often paid-for) Digital Transformation degrees that reproduce the old classroom learning patterns but equipped with glossy materials and occasional case-based / problem-based approaches
- ‘Digitization’ of mainstream Business degrees where digital ‘extensions’ (logistics, marketing, HR) are built into established business function subjects that continue to survive in the old ‘silo’ logic
This reflects a ‘wash me but don’t wet me’ attitude as a German saying goes. Universities are still hesitant about fully embracing developments that will force them to overthrow compartmented teaching/learning routines.
This corresponds, a least at the current stage, to most SMEs’ stance deferring major adjustments and significant reforms in structure and core processes to the mid-term future, and making ‘digestable’ adjustments.
Public university coming under pressure
A number of (mainly external) factors may, in the mid-term, speed up the reform of learning organization at universities:
- Increased competition from private providers and universities: Khan’s Academy, Udemy and others as pacemakers. Service: specific, affordable and user-friendly online education. Private universities – outside the Ivy League eco-system – ‘sell’ managed degrees and proximity to private sector that is said to provide better employment opportunities.
- Increased international competition from gamechanging universities. Mobility, especially for Master’s programs, has increased dramatically.
- Increased pressure from private sector and thinktanks influencing educational policies
- Challenges brought forward for universities to open up to industry’s and society’s demands
- The success of supposedly ‘integrated’ / industrial degrees
- The penetration of MOOCs into mainstream Higher Education and universal access to knowledge
Imminent changes in teaching/learning at public universities
Changes appearing on the horizon:
- Committing to societal needs and organizing opening of learning.
- Universal use of MOOCs and digital content designed for self-access learning, consequently change of role of lecturers (content providers vs moderators/coaches).
- Self-paced student learning inside or outside classrooms. Reduced role of ‘cohort learning’, multi-location learning (campus, internships, assignments, exploration, home study). Campus losing status as single location of learning.
- Diversification of individual learning pathways, pressure to flexibilize curricula. Open and customizable curricula, a-la-carte syllabi.
- Role of lecturers massively shifting towards moderation, mentoring and coaching.
- Battle among teaching faculty over new learning culture.
- Universities as the historical center of debate and idea building opening up to private sector and seeking role in delivering change.

Popular current ‘integrated’ learning environments
Trend: integrate with business, industry and societal organizations – make it ‘practical’ and ‘hands-on’
Origin: mainly in German-speaking countries (background: job-based vocational training), characteristics of new types of degrees:
- Multitude of terms: ‘industrial degrees’, ‘alternance’ (Fr), ‘apprenticeships’, ‘professional degree’, ‘immersion program’, ‘dual programs’, ‘professional degree’, ‘integrated degree’, …
- On and off-campus, certain immersion with real-world work environments, but learning processes kept (mostly) separate with little actual integration (hence ‘alternating’)
- Certain to high involvement of private stakeholders in governance and recruitment, public-private partnership
- Students mostly under employment contract (working hours, pay, covered by collective agreements)
- Good job opportunities for graduates, high job security motivation
- On-campus learning mostly conventional classroom instruction, on-the-job component with numerous variations and less formalized learning environments
- Education as a marketable commodity
- Mainly BSc and BA level, little to no integration with campus research, ‘streamlined’ and compact academic curricula, trend towards ‘pattern-recipy-checklist’ (termed ‘practical’) teaching
Discussion: Private vs public? ‘Bildung’ vs training? Knowledge vs skills? Meaning vs commodity? … vs …?
CHEDTEB in search of an integrated learning environment for a Master’s in Digital Transformation

Farewell to the universal and standardized curriculum
Individualizing learning pathways on the CHEDTEB degree
- ‘Agile’ curricula: high content turnover, focus on cross-functional and soft skills
- ‘Mass customization’ of degree profile: underneath level of core content areas (modules of semesters 1 to 4) large playing field for student to self-design learning agenda (partly digital content resources, teambuilding, assignments for problem-based studies, collaborative infrastructure, coaching by lecturer)
- Regular re-design of module topics and content in interaction with corporate partners
- Content of modules to be applied in one corporate project per semester, project with academic and industrial focus, project assignment to be negotiated between student teams, academic and corporate partners
- Cross-faculty/cross-border teambuilding of students
- Problem of accreditation: conventional accreditation cycles heavy-weighed and lengthy, systemic accreditation to be sought for facilitating fluidity
- Problem of assessment: Reduced standardization of content requires individualized exam formats and deliverables. Comparability to be ensured by focus on results as operationalized indicators of skills and learning outcomes.
Project-based learning on the CHEDTEB degree
- Function of project modules: apply and practice skills acquired during the (four) semester modules
- Project module requires briefing and debriefing format, agreements with companies (legal issues, assessment, credits, responsibilities and duties, deadlines, finance a.o.) and a module leader
- Semester projects co-assigned by academic and corporate partners to groups of c. 4 students and negotiated with student teams, assignment to be based on semester’s study modules but may have reduced focus
- No ‘handovers’ of students like in alternator mode
- Integration with semester content and corporate agenda in a number of ways, options:
- Ongoing: student groups are assigned tasks at start of term and work on them parallel to attending study modules
- Blockwise: student groups work on assignments for one block period during term
- Student teams: local or cross-university if feasible
- Integrated tutoring teams (academic and corporate partner), integration of corporate lecturers on semester’s module pathway
- Creditable teaching workload of the project module should be 6 ECTS, study modules calibrated flexibly, e.g. 6 ECTS, 10 ECTS, 12 ECTS, but standard should be 6 ECTS
- Technical delivery of the project module to be defined locally and flexibly by each partner
- Collaboration framework required: small project support groups (lecturer/s, corporate coach, occasionally HR officer, customer if applicable) and consultation council (academic program director, corporate HR, student representative)
Study pattern of the semester project

One corporate project module per semester, four or more campus modules

Reads: student group is assigned topic and data; students immerse (whilst pursuing modules in parallel) and analyze problem and status quo; students develop solution; students present results.

Challenges of open curriculum and learning issues
- Motivating corporate partners to invest in sustainable co-operation (coaching and tutoring framework, reconciling academic and corporate agendas)
- How to organize blending of conventional instruction into self-paced learning on modules
- Initiating, mainstreaming, implementing and sharing an agile learning culture with students, lecturers and consortium partners
- Systematically reconciling student initiative and curriculum requirements (choice of topics, specializations, teams)
- How to ensure values and ethical issues become an integral part of assignments
- Securing an adequate level of analysis and reflection whilst demanding full student commitment to delivery of results on projects
- How to ensure transnational systemic accreditation (cf above, EU-wide process for ‘ordinary’ degrees in place but only initial experience and not for systemic accreditation)
- How to maintain fluidity mode in systemic accreditation (content updates, learning pathways, quality assurance of external co-operation)
Future skills

