Once regarded as a potential threat to academic integrity and institutional missions, generative artificial intelligence has become a strategic ally to many higher education institutions. This shift was discussed in a recent webinar led by experts Saravanan Subbarayan and David Gagnon from KPMG. The experts noted that not all organizations view AI as an ally in the same way.
The Four Institutional Approaches
Subbarayan and Gagnon identified four main approaches to AI integration among educational institutions: trailblazers, synergists, mavericks, and stragglers. According to Subbarayan, “It’s a mosaic of factors, ranging from technological advancements to necessity, that is driving the shift in higher education institutions moving beyond their initial fear of AI.”
Trailblazers are those institutions that lead by investing heavily in technology and encourage their peers to follow. In contrast, synergists collaborate with other schools to pool resources for collective benefits. Mavericks, on the other hand, are independent experimenters who tailor AI solutions to their unique institutional needs. Lastly, stragglers approach AI cautiously, often limited by resources or outdated systems.
As Subbarayan clarified, “Survivors — the institutions that are either smaller in size, have financial strain, or are lagging in performance — often become ‘stragglers’ in GenAI adoption due to existing technology infrastructure, limited funding, or challenges in allocating resources for new technology experiments.” This indicates that institutional performance and financial capacity greatly influence the effectiveness of AI adoption.
Individual Approaches to AI Integration
Within institutions, the leaders spearheading AI integration adopt varying priorities. Subbarayan stated, “Most institutions are synergists and collaborate with peers to ideate and implement GenAI use cases; however, different roles within the same institution may fall into various categories.”
In the realm of individual approaches, Subbarayan and Gagnon recognize three types of leaders: technologists, academicians, and administrators. Technologists manage the infrastructure and vendor selections, academicians emphasize ethical applications and research, while administrators focus on improving operational efficiencies. Gagnon remarked: “The recipe for successful generative AI adoption is a mixture of collaboration and coordination among a team that includes all three kinds of leaders.” This synergy is crucial for effectively integrating AI into institutional frameworks.
Looking Ahead
As institutions gradually move past their initial trepidation regarding AI, it is projected to become an even greater priority by 2025, necessitating careful governance. Gagnon highlighted the importance of how existing ERP and SaaS products incorporate generative AI, stating, “The extent to which existing ERP and SaaS products incorporate generative AI will be a critical factor, with colleges and universities likely adopting a blend of these innovative use cases.”
To manage potential risks associated with biased data and algorithmic errors, comprehensive internal controls will be essential. Gagnon concluded, “However, with the right controls in place, the benefits of AI can outweigh the risks.” This balanced outlook emphasizes the potential for AI to positively transform higher education when implemented thoughtfully and strategically.
- 0 Comments
- Higher Education
- Institutional Strategies
- KPMG