Advisory boards have a long history and can be genuine forces for industry insight, expert advice and sound counsel. As we have seen with Theranos and Enron they can also be stacked full of notable and well respected names to provide comfort to outsiders without much impact on management behaviour. With private money flooding into edtech there seems to have been an increase in advisory appointments and it is to be hoped that they will bring benefits to universities and students.
Recent developments at ApplyBoard, THE Student and LeverageEdu and longer standing arrangements, bring higher education insiders firmly alongside commercial organizations that are trying to grow their business in higher education. Motives will differ but there is always a degree of flattery in being singled out as a “thought leader” and invited to join a group of colleagues to give your opinion without having any responsibility for delivery. Those with an authoritative voice in education circles might also argue that influencing, or learning from, a commercial organization engaged with the sector is always a good thing.
For the commercial partner there are clear benefits to being closely associated with reputable individuals. This is particularly so where the very presence of their names on the website, or at events and making introductions, brings instant credibility. It can sometimes go wrong but rarely turns into the public resignation crises encountered by Pride in London, the UK’s Science Museum, or software company Afiniti.
Whatever the purpose of the appointment it would seem to be in the interests of the adviser, the commercial entity and industry stakeholders to make the terms of engagement transparent. Advisers might also consider flagging their role at any event where the subject comes up and confirming whether it reflects any opinion on the merit of one commercial organization over its competitors. The Advisory Board Centre (which appears to operate mainly across Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore) also has some interesting reading on the subject.
Apply Carefully
The stated purpose of the ApplyBoard UK advisory board is to “guide and support ApplyBoard’s expansion within the United Kingdom”. Recent ApplyBoard advisory appointee, Prof Sir Steve Smith, was billed in his role UK Government International Education Champion when he presented at a recent ApplyBoard event described as a “closed door briefing” for UK vice chancellors. It’s entirely possible the advisory role was announced or well known to the audience but they might legitimately wonder if his role implies any views about the company’s market position compared to commercial competitors.
Two other recent appointees to this advisory board have roles with HEPI*, which has long positioned itself as the “UK’s only independent think tank devoted to higher education”. One industry commentator described the new board members as “smart cookies along with £3bn betting on AB and you are betting against it, you braver than I!” (sic). It will be interesting to watch how praise or criticism is allocated in any HEPI articles** about the role of aggregators and whether there will be an appetite to consider the policy questions around possible regulation.
Slice of the Pie
LeverageEDU recently announced the addition of the CEO and founder of PIE News to its advisory board. There is one other advisory member, Karan Khemka, formerly of EY Parthenon and now a portfolio board member and investor, who is also a Director of agent aggregator Adventus. The PIE has published extensively on the aggregator community and announced Khemka’s appointment but its own CEO’s new role doesn’t appear to have been important enough to make even the “movers” section of the publication.
Oversight or Oversight?
THE Student’s global student advisory board has gone the route of appointing individuals with roles in universities. The Chair of the Board says (of edtech) that “it’s vital that the university sector has oversight of this newly emerging field”. There would be a lot of agreement on that but, unless there is some undeclared governance aspect, an advisory board doesn’t usually provide oversight or binding advice.
The board has representatives from several parts of the world but one of the biographies on the website is already out of date. David Pilsbury is shown as Deputy Vice Chancellor, International at Coventry University, a role he left in June 2021, and he is now Chief Development Officer at Oxford International Education Group. In the interests of transparency it seems reasonable to expect that Advisory Board profiles are kept up to date.
A Portal to Misinformation
The relative newness of the THE board may save it from an even poorer showing at StudyPortals where four of the nine members of the UK Advisory Board have moved on from the positions described on the website. Andrew Didsbury left the University of West Scotland in January 2019; Ken Gill left NCUK in May 2019; Dr Sonal Minocha is now a Professor and left Bournemouth in December 2018; and; Dr David Pilsbury (the same one as on the THE Board), left Coventry University in June 2021. If students are reassured that Study Portals is taking advice from an Advisory Board entirely made up of stalwarts from UK universities they are sadly mistaken.
Most of those moving have gone on to roles in commercial roles. Didsbury has become President UK at MSquare Media which describes itself as a “leading global service provider and international education platform”; Pilsbury is Chief Development Officer at Oxford International Education Group and Minocha is Chief Academic Officer and Co-CEO at a yet to be announced edtech venture. Worth adding here that MSquare Media has a UK and Europe Advisory Board with eight external worthies from UK universities and the British Council – the biographies look totally up to date.
Pathways to Confusion
Senior university figures engaging with commercial entities have a particular need to ensure that their role is not misunderstood and Professor Sir David Eastwood’s appointment with INTO University Partnerships (IUP) may offer some lessons. After becoming VC of the University of Birmingham in 2009 he became a Director of IUP in 2014, but when the university UCU union branch asked in 2018 why this interest was not declared during discussions on student recruitment, he was re-classified by the university as “non-executive” director of IUP. The UK’s Institute of Directors state that “there is no legal distinction between executive and non-executive directors”.
There appears to be no recorded comment on motivations for taking the post or what benefit the University got from the appointment but it must be assumed that the appropriate university authorities gave approval.*** Eastwood is due to have a statue honouring him erected on the Birmingham campus when he retires later this year and currently holds 258000 C Ordinary Shares in IUP. His current profile on the university website describes him “a Board Member and Non-Executive Director of INTO University Partnerships” while IUP’s pages describe him as a Board Director.
Slippery Pole or Path to Glory
The worthiest and most high-minded motives can be misunderstood and it is reasonable to know whether people, particularly those in positions of power and influence, have any personal stake in a cause they are discussing. The contemporary debate in the UK about MPs having second jobs or using their position to lobby for commercial organizations is not directly equivalent but reflects the risks caused by uncertainty over motives and rewards. As Warren Buffett reminds us, “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.”
NOTES
Material presented in this blog reflects publicly available information with the links given checked in the period up to 3 December 2021. If there are any errors or misrepresentations they will be amended on receipt of authoritative and documented evidence. Individuals who wish to clarify the nature of their agreement, including any benefits received or anticipated, with the commercial company mentioned will have that information added to this blog.
* HEPI is a company limited by guarantee and a registered charity and “aim to be transparent in our funding”. Broadly 45% of income comes from HE institutions, 30% from corporate partners, 15% from events and the rest from co-sponsored projects.
** HEPI’s work is guided by an Advisory Board appointed by the Trustees. The Board’s role is “only to give advice to the Director”
