Curriculum of a Master's Degree in Digital Transformation of Corporate Business | CHEDTEB | Erasmus+ Strategic Partnership
Curriculum of a Master’s degree in Digital Transformation of Corporate Business
Curriculum of a Master’s degree in Digital
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?

Part A: Learning outcomes

The learning outcomes and objectives of the degree

Overall learning outcome
Be able to drive digital transformation in a company and with corporate teams by appropriately applying digital technologies
Analytical vs delivery skills
•Analyzing status quo, needs and options
•Suggesting, advocating and implementing change
Soft skills
•To be addressed on each module (for specifics cf Curriculum)
•Specifically addressed during Tartu semester
Company projects
•Analysis of corporate status quo
•Proposing changes and solutions
•Suggesting implementation


Taxonomy - Skills Levels

CHEDTEB’s learning outcomes – taxonomic calibre


Content areas of the degree

Semester 1 Semester 2 Semester 3 Semester 4 5 study modules 1 project module 4 study modules 1 project module 4 study modules 1 project module Master thesis project

Part B: Program organization, cohort rotation, syllabus sequencing

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

 

Joint degree platform of A/B/C universities -> international marketing of degree and annual intake of 30 students

 

  • 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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Option 3 scenario: building up enrolment over a time sequence


Overview of rotation models

 

Overview of rotation models


Overview of sequencing options

 

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.

Part C: Learning design

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.

Multi-location / multi-channel learning environment


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

Discussion: Private vs public? ‘Bildung’ vs training? Knowledge vs skills? Meaning vs commodity? … vs …?


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

Study pattern of the semester project


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

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.


Semester project module, learning model


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

Future skills Technical skills (examples) •Digital technology awareness and constant updating •Data awareness and savvyness Performance skills (examples) •Adaptability and change •Learning and developmental skills •Teambuilding and process building skills Communication and collaboration skills (examples) •Customer orientation, understanding and communication •Sharing and sourcing •Judgmental skills on ethical and values issues Personal skills (examples) •Empathy •Mobility •Learning and developmental skills •Cross-cultural skills Main trends: •Technological innovation entering all aspects of life and work. •Need for constant adaptation, change and learning⁹ •Increasing demand for soft and personal skills¹⁰.

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.

About

This project shared by the three partner universities Bielefeld University of Applied Sciences/D, Brno University of Technology/CZ and University of Tartu/EST aims to provide the framework for a future joint master's degree on Digital Transformation of Corporate Business.

Search

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential for the operation of the site, while others help us to improve this site and the user experience (tracking cookies). You can decide for yourself whether you want to allow cookies or not. Please note that if you reject them, you may not be able to use all the functionalities of the site.