All four. Always.

Why FE digital change keeps stalling and what systems thinking reveals.

The FE sector is under pressure to digitise, modernise and now to adopt AI. Finally there is investment. There is also the intent to improve the Digital Experience of our colleagues and students and yet outcomes are still fragmented, or worse disappointing, though this is not caused by a simple lack of effort or enthusiasm.

FE News has previously highlighted that fragmented digital experiences undermine trust and engagement when institutions fail to design services end to end.

There are four forces  that shape every digital change in FE: Organisations and people, information and technology, partners and suppliers, and value streams and processes.  These are the four dimensions of Digital Product & Service Management (DPSM)  the core of the new ITIL best practice framework, and we should look deeply at why these matter. All four. Always.

This isn’t a skills or technology problem

It’s clear that technological capability exists across FE. Numerous platforms and tools are already in place. We have access to emerging cloud based student information systems, learning management tools and  best of breed collaboration platforms.

The big issue sits in how change is designed and managed as a system. ITIL’s guiding principles, especially “think and work holistically,” reinforce the need to consider all four dimensions together right from the outset of any new digital initiative.

In FE this often shows up during rollouts, where a system is procured and technically implemented successfully, but teaching staff are not involved in design, training is compressed into the final weeks, and support teams inherit unclear ownership. The result is predictable: workarounds, frustration, and a rapid loss of confidence in the service.

FE already runs digital products and services

IT platforms, MIS data, curriculum and support systems behave as digital products. However the friction our staff and students experience day-to-day can be because of services built out of, or on top of these products. This is the reality that ITIL’s DPSM describes.

Where the lifecycle breaks

Historically our urge for new and shiny, with decisions made too far upstream and thoughts on how to run with these new tools are left as separate concerns. Upstream decisions we should realise always have a downstream impact, over time ownership thins out and there are always handoffs and trade-offs. This is where DPSM brings a useful, careful lens.

In FE we talk about where this fails quite commonly, data issues for example get treated as integration problems, but really it’s an ownership and governance issue at heart. When we don’t collaborate and have accountability for solutions end to end we see the impact in the quality of data we can access and this undermines trust in systems as a whole.

Why all four matter, all of the time

People and organisational design, information and technology, partners and suppliers, and end-to-end value for our colleagues and students must be considered together. All four. Always.

When we take the time to focus on what will bring value, and we collaborate then strength in process and practice emerges quickly and consistently.  Without an eye on all four of the dimensions equally then it’s inevitable that later we will discover a shortcoming, an oversight, that will impact upon digital experience.

AI makes weak systems fail faster

There’s pressure too now to consider AI, “we need a system with AI”, but as a piece of technology alone, this isn’t the answer. AI operates across the full lifecycle and amplifies any ignored dimension. Almost all AI failures we see so far are governance and lifecycle failures, not model failures and we need to remind ourselves again of the holistic picture.

Guidance from sector bodies such as JISC, and industry best practice such as PeopleCert’s 6C AI Capability Model increasingly points to data quality, decision rights, and supplier governance as the critical success factors for AI adoption, rather than the features of the tooling itself.

Resistance is a response, not the problem

Whilst we may see digital transformation as a new concept, and the backlash we see when this fails, right back into the 80’s Peter Checkland wrote about resistance. He talked about this reflecting differing worldviews and how easy it is to find misalignment. We’ve known about the problems for some time, now we have a new way of thinking about the solutions.

David Barrow’s book reinforces that service management is human work. Change done to people fails predictably. So is it not time that we step back, take in the bigger picture, bring the right people to the table at the right time, up front. Technologists, end users, leaders, the unions and even our students.

What this means for FE leaders

This evolutionary ideal of lifecycle ownership matters more than just a simple project closure. We need to co-create, with learning and feedback built in. We need to keep our eyes wide and keep all four dimensions in view. There’s nothing wrong with baby steps, iterating toward a final solution bringing our people with us on the journey.

FE leaders should stop thinking just about projects in a transactional sense and start to see the benefits of wider lifecycle ownership. Digital change isn’t just about go-live, that’s just how we see the consequences of not thinking holistically and considering all four dimensions play out.

We need to keep the authority and accountability for digital change together. Keeping feedback loops tight but constant, iterating towards a shared solution is better than big bang failure. The signals of failure, of distrust, of poor fit are there early we just need to observe them and act on them.

No new platform is required. What is required is the four dimensions which hold the whole system together. All four, always.

By Alex Harding is the Head of IT Services at Runshaw College

He is an award-winning IT and digital services leader with 17+ years’ experience across service management, cyber security and organisational change. A Chartered IT Professional, ITIL Master and ITIL Ambassador, he has led teams delivering high-performing service desks, major transformation programmes and sector-leading information security, with a focus on inclusive, people-centred leadership in FE.

Further Reading

PeopleCert, (2026), ITIL (Version 5) Foundation

Checkland, P. (1999). Soft systems methodology in action.

Barrow, D. (2023). An education in service management: A guide to building a successful service management career and delivering organisational success.

PeopleCert. (2026). Artificial intelligence and service management: ITIL AI governance and the 6C capability model. PeopleCert. https://www.itil.com/Itil-News-and-Announcements/ai-governance-white-paper

Jisc. (2025). Leading AI in colleges: a strategic framework. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/leading-ai-in-colleges-a-strategic-framework