Page:The battle for open.pdf/190

Rh accreditation, raising issues for a large-scale institution with a global brand–are more difficult. In terms of resistance, then, the OU is well placed, in that it has adaptable infrastructure, but ­susceptible in that it arguably has greater potential for damage to its brand than a smaller institution.

It is the examination of this factor that reveals the OU’s solution to MOOCs in FutureLearn most clearly. The OU has the infrastructure systems required to support ­large-scale, high-quality MOOCs, but not the small nimble approach required for more experimental versions. A solution that meets these strengths combines elements of both the expertise and scale of the existing organisation, with the agility required of a small s­tart-up. FutureLearn therefore represents a model which most conveniently plays to the OU’s strengths and renders resistance less of a consideration.

With 246,626 registered students in 2012 and a £252M reserve (Open University 2012), the OU is not in an immediately precarious state, although both of these figures may be negatively affected by changes in the student fee structure as set out below. MOOCs have arrived at a time of great upheaval in the UK higher education system, with the introduction of student fees. This is dealt with in more detail in the next section under panarchy, as it represents an external force.

It has necessitated wholesale change in the model used by the OU, both in terms of funding and course delivery. Student fees are associated with a qualification and not with individual modules, requiring a shift in the granularity of operation to this higher level. This has required the types of large, systemic institutional