Digital Transformation in Educational Organizations: Leadership, Innovation and Industry 4.0

Poszytek, Paweł Book Digital Transformation in Educational Organizations: Leadership, Innovation and Industry 4.0 Routledge Open Business and Economics Provided in Cooperation with: Taylor & Francis Group Suggested Citation: Poszytek, Paweł (2024) : Digital Transformation in Educational Organizations: Leadership, Innovation and Industry 4.0, Routledge Open Business and Economics, ISBN 978-1-040-03986-1, Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003482246 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/305360 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION IN EDUCATIONAL ORGANISATIONS LEADERSHIP, INNOVATION AND INDUSTRY 4.0 Paweł Poszytek Routledge Open Business and Economics Digital Transformation in Educational Organisations Technological transformation should enhance people’s potential and the development of their social competences, especially those connected with effective communication on different levels. The COVID-19 pandemic has intensified all these processes, and for better resilience and effectiveness at work, it now requires different sets of competences. This book gives direct insight into changes that take place in education in the context of an unprecedented and rapid technological advancement, which requires the reorientation of goals and functions based on innovative, adaptive and flexible solutions – in most cases driven by individual leadership. It describes the way to reach this reorientation and shows through thorough research how educational leaders position themselves in this way in this fast-changing ecosystem. Exploring how educational leaders manage the challenges of digital transformation, using European collaborative projects, this research volume discusses how this process impacts the effectiveness and sustainability of organisational activities. Establishing a model for assessing digital transformation in educational organisations and evaluating the effectiveness of their leaders will be of value to researchers, academics, practitioners and advanced students in the fields of leadership, organisational change, management of technology and innovation and those interested in the development of education and the utilisation of digitalisation. Paweł Poszytek is an associate professor of WSB University and a visiting scholar at Stanford University at the time of its volume’s release. He has also been a member of various advisory and consultative groups to the European Commission for many years. Routledge Open Business and Economics Routledge Open Business and Economics provides a platform for the open access publication of monographs and edited collections across the full breadth of these disciplines including accounting, finance, management, marketing and political economy. Reflecting our commitment to supporting open access publishing, this series provides a key repository for academic research in business and economics. Books in the series are published via the Gold Open Access model and are therefore available for free download and re-use according to the terms of Creative Commons licence. They can be accessed via the Routledge and Taylor & Francis website, as well as third party discovery sites such as the Directory of OAPEN Library, Open Access Books, PMC Bookshelf, and Google Books. Note that the other Business and Economics series at Routledge also all accept open access books for publication. Organizing Sustainable Development Edited by Aneta Kuźniarska, Karolina Mania and Monika Jedynak The European Digital Economy Drivers of Digital Transition and Economic Recovery Edited by Judyta Lubacha, Beata Mäihäniemi and Rafał Wisła Digitization, Trust and SMEs Anna Wziątek-Staśko and Karolina Pobiedzińska Digital Transformation in Educational Organisations Leadership, Innovation and Industry 4.0 Paweł Poszytek For more information about this series, please visit: Routledge Open Business and Economics - Book Series - Routledge & CRC Press Digital Transformation in Educational Organisations Leadership, Innovation and Industry 4.0 Paweł Poszytek First published 2024 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 Paweł Poszytek The right of Paweł Poszytek to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. The Open Access version of this book, available at www.taylorfrancis. com, has been made available under a Creative Commons AttributionNon Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data Names: Poszytek, Paweł, author. Title: Digital transformation in educational organizations : leadership, innovation and industry 4.0 / Paweł Poszytek. Description: 1. | New York : Routledge, 2024. | Series: Routledge open business and economics | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2023059118 | ISBN 9781032771496 (hbk) | ISBN 9781032772851 (pbk) | ISBN 9781003482246 (ebk) Subjects: LCSH: Education‐‐Effect of technological innovations on. | Educational innovations. | Educational technology. Classification: LCC LB1028.3 .P676 2024 | DDC 370.28‐‐dc23/eng/ 20240414 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023059118 The project “PERFECT - Regional Initiative of Excellence in WSB University”. The project is funded under the program of the Minister of Science and Higher Education titled “Regional Initiative of Excellence” in 2019–2023, project number 018/RID/2018/19, the amount of funding PLN 10 788 423,16. The research on American universities included in this monograph has been made possible by the Kosciuszko Foundation, New York. ISBN: 978-1-032-77149-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-77285-1 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-48224-6 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003482246 Typeset in Times New Roman by MPS Limited, Dehradun Contents List of tables viii List of figure xii List of maps xiii Introduction 1 1 Digital transformation in education within a broader socio-economical context 9 1.1 Megatrends shaping the present and the future of the world of work and education 9 1.2 Industry 4.0 and competences 4.0 as a driving force behind social and educational changes 11 1.3 Leadership in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution 18 1.4 Network and relational paradigm in management and educational projects 20 2 Digital transformation as a prerequisite for creating an innovative ecosystem in educational institutions 29 2.1 The European Union’s digital agenda for economy and education 29 2.2 Digital transformation and digital maturity 32 2.3 Higher education of the future in the context of Industry 4.0 33 3 The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic 38 3.1 Educational leaders’ effectiveness in managing and sustaining international cooperation projects during the COVID-19 pandemic 38 3.2 Digital and social competences as a protective shield against the COVID-19 pandemic 42 3.3 Educational leaders’ learning potential and its influence on the sustainability of their activities 61 3.4 Towards digital maturity of educational leaders 65 4 Universities participating in European Universities Initiative as digital hubs 73 4.1 European Universities and their networking and relational character 73 4.2 Digital transformation of universities within European Universities alliances – a diagnostic study 75 4.3 Digital transformation of universities from American perspective – a comparative study 94 4.4 Digital maturity of universities within European Universities alliances 114 5 Ecosystem for sustainable change: Bridging the gap between the world of business and the world of education – towards the paradigm of Education 4.0 116 5.1 The common understanding of competences 4.0 116 5.2 The development of competences 4.0 at universities – agenda for the future 118 5.3 Academia – business collaboration 125 5.4 Towards innovation in education 128 Conclusions 134 Appendices 138 Annex I Examples of innovative Erasmus+ projects contributing to digital transformation 138 vi Contents Annex II Survey questionnaire on Erasmus+ project leaders’ digital competences, social competences, learning potential and digital maturity 167 Annex III Selected European Universities Initiative alliances 193 Annex IV Survey questionnaire on digital transformation of universities 201 Annex V Survey questionnaire based on the Higher Education-Business Engagement Index and its indicators 209 Index 232 Contents vii Introduction The publication presents a theoretical and practical approach to assess how well educational leaders handle the challenges of the digital transformation era by using European collaborative projects. It investigates the impact of this process on the effectiveness and sustainability of their organisational activities. The study is based on a review of conceptual and empirical work on the relational and network paradigms in management and competences 4.0. In addition, the theoretical part of this study lays the groundwork for formulating the concept of paradigm 4.0 in education, and finally, the research part helps in fine-tuning this concept in the light of the research. The entire study is based on two distinct research components. The first research focuses on Erasmus+ project leaders, representing various sectors such as public universities, schools, private companies, NGOs and associations engaged in international innovative projects. These organisations work towards developing competences for diverse target groups, including pupils, students, young workers and adults. By the definition, this group constitutes the cohort of educational leaders implementing innovations into the system. The second research concentrates on a specific sub-group of this group, namely, higher education leaders participating in the European Universities Initiative. This initiative holds significant importance and priority for the European Commission, aiming to transform the European Higher Education Area from both innovative and digital perspectives. The European University Initiative aims to foster collaboration among higher education institutions in Europe, with the primary goals of promoting excellence, innovation, and, most importantly, digital transformation in teaching, research and administration. It should be noted that in this study, educational leaders are not only understood from an individual perspective, such as project coordinators driving organisational change, but also from an institutional viewpoint. These leaders represent innovative organisations that effectively undergo a complete digital transformation, becoming full-fledged digitally transformed institutions, often referred to as organisations 4.0. The innovative DOI: 10.4324/9781003482246-1 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. projects coordinated and carried out by these individuals meet all the criteria of temporary organisations, serving as the foundation for further permanent organisational changes within their respective institutions. According to Packendorff (1995:326), a comprehensive definition of temporary organisations describes them as consortia of international, institutional partners of different organisational types, collaborating for a specific period of time to achieve certain goals or develop specific products. This kind of cooperation allows them to share experience, learn and expand their institutional capacities. It is also highly interesting to observe how this entire group of leaders has coped, particularly during COVID-19 and the post-pandemic period, which has necessitated and accelerated digital advancements in organisations to a significant extent. The second research is focused on an elite group of leaders actively involved in activities within the European Universities Initiative. Their aim is not only to develop innovative methods and solutions for international cooperation between European universities in teaching and research areas, often using digital tools, but also to reform universities as organisations by implementing digital solutions. Thus, once again, by definition, this group of educational leaders represents a pertinent and critical target for the research, not only from an individual perspective but also from an institutional point of view. Apart from diagnostic character of this research, there is also a comparative element included in it which also looks at this phenomenon from an American perspective. Both of the mentioned research activities serve mainly as diagnostic tools, assessing the progress of digital transformation and the effectiveness of this process, which indicates the level of digital maturity achieved. The first research evaluates the competences 4.0 of educational leaders, particularly focusing on digital competences, and examines to what extent these competences facilitate the realisation, management and sustainability of Erasmus+ projects during the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the research questions at this stage are as follows: • What are the levels of digital competences among Erasmus+ project leaders? • Which competences 4.0 facilitate the management of Erasmus+ projects during the COVID-19 pandemic? • How does the learning potential of educational leaders influence the effective management of Erasmus+ projects during the COVID-19 pandemic? The main objective of the second research activity is to diagnose the level of advancement of digital transformation of universities affiliated with the European Universities alliances and also to compare this level of advancement 2 Introduction to selected American universities. The study is based on the underlying assumption that progressive digital transformation towards Education 4.0 (Morańska, Ciesielska and Jędrzejko 2021) is built upon four interrelated pillars: • Mature use of new digital technologies both in the teaching process and in the area of academic research and administrative service • Personalisation of the knowledge and skills imparted and adaptation of educational services to the individual needs of the student • Responsible data collection and analysis (including digital data) • The readiness of teaching, academic and administrative staff to work with smart technology solutions. In addition, the study aims to examine the extent to which the surveyed universities are addressing the challenges of developing Education 4.0, as identified by the World Economic Forum, i.e.: 1 Preparation of content tailored to the adaptation needs and to the development of social competences (transformative competences, i.e. innovative thinking, ability to solve tensions and dilemmas and readiness to take responsibility for one’s own actions) 2 Preparing students for gaining experience during their education (personalisation of learning, inclusive learning, problem-based learning, lifelong learning). The study also demonstrates how the digital transformation, which clearly accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, has changed the way universities operate in the areas of teaching, academic research and administration. As a result, it brings the educational model of universities closer to the Education 4.0 paradigm. As a point of reference for the analysis of the digitalisation of universities, it is worthwhile to draw on the assumptions of a parallel digital transformation in the industrial sector. To some extent, the management system, strategy and overall development of a university can be approached similarly to a well-functioning enterprise. In the industrial sector, we can observe an accelerating development of companies towards Industry 4.0, characterised by intelligent manufacturing, advanced use of digital technologies and big data analytics. This transformation leads to increased productivity, flexibility and agility within the company. The study carried out at universities aims to demonstrate whether similar solutions are also implemented in the education sector and, if so, in which areas and to what extent. The development of companies towards Industry 4.0 is based on five pillars as the main areas of change. These are: Introduction 3 1) management model, 2) strategy, 3) human capital, 4) infrastructure and 5) product. Similarly, the elements identified in the digital transformation model of companies can be successfully highlighted in the case of university operations – each of the mentioned areas of technological evolution of companies has its counterpart in the educational ecosystem. Accordingly, the research questions in this second part of the study are as follows: • How do universities within the European Universities Initiative digitally transform? • How do universities within the European Universities Initiative compare to American examples? And finally, taking into consideration both research activities, the main research question is: • How digitally mature are educational leaders included in the research? To sum up, the main purpose of the study is to develop a model against which the assessment of digital transformation in educational organisations can be carried out on the one hand, and the effectiveness of their leaders can be evaluated on the other hand. As stated before, digital maturity depends on digital transformation but is not necessarily the immediate result of this transformation; maturity means both implementation and effectiveness. Consequently, the main aim of the book is to map the ways in which digital transformation is being carried out and to what extent digital maturity is being achieved by educational leaders within a broader European context. Furthermore, digital transformation and achieving digital maturity, as a tangible sign of this transformation in the broader context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, are not limited only to the implementation of new technologies in organisations, both in business and education. It is also not merely about the dissemination of digital goods and services among various consumers, including students. This transformation, or digital transition as the European Commission calls it, is first and foremost about changing business and operational models in all spheres of educational and broader socio-economic life. What is crucial and relevant here is that this transition, in order to achieve substantial digital maturity, must lead to the functional change of public institutions, especially universities. What underlies this process is the fact that in order to achieve greater resilience, competitive advantage and foster innovation, educational institutions and their leaders must base their activities on network, relational and hybrid modes of operations. These are also the lessons learnt from the COVID-19 4 Introduction pandemic. All these factors influence the current and future modes of work. The work environment now is already defined by distant and online operations, the use of big data, systems based on artificial intelligence and the common use of technologies as such. This also means that people and machines will complement each other and have to communicate with each other effectively. All these technological transformations should lead to enhancing people’s potential and the development of their cognitive and social competences, especially those connected with effective communication on different levels. The COVID-19 pandemic has intensified all these processes, and for better resilience and effectiveness at work, it now requires different sets of competences. On a more general level, Hewlett Packard Enterprise states that digitalisation must be perceived as one of the key enablers of effective management of various processes offering savings and bringing benefits such as access, transparency and quality. Digital tools allow optimisation, increased processing speed and boost cross-institutional and cross-departmental collaboration. This is increasingly relevant in today’s complex realities where policy areas of various sorts can be impacted by interrelated factors such as climate change or others (Hewlett Packard Enterprise 2023:6). Accordingly, the study presented in this book also includes research carried out during the pandemic and related to educational leaders’ competences, which may help them go through this digital transformation with relative ease. The final conclusions from all research activities presented here intend to map a broader issue of digital maturity of educational leaders. This publication also gives direct insight into changes that take place in education in the context of an unprecedented and rapid technological advancement, which requires a reorientation of goals and functions based on innovative, adaptive and flexible solutions. The book describes in detail the way to reach this reorientation and shows through thorough research how educational leaders position themselves on this path in this fast-changing ecosystem. Accordingly, the first chapter of this book describes the broader socioeconomic context, which requires educational institutions and educational leaders to become more innovative and, above all, to undergo digital transformation. This transition, in turn, results from unprecedented technological advancement and the need to address the requirements of the current and future labour market. The broader context of this transition is defined by three megatrends: demographic change, globalisation and technological advancement itself. All these megatrends are shaping the present and future world of work and education. The chapter also presents the concept of Industry 4.0, also called the Fourth Industrial Revolution, that is defining today’s world of work together with competences 4.0, or competences of the future, and their consequences for education. All industrial revolutions and Introduction 5 the development of artificial intelligence are presented here from the historical point of view as well. Consequently, this discussion leads to the concept of competence-based leadership, which, according to the research presented in this book, is a key driver to organisational change resulting from the need for digital transformation. Finally, the chapter presents the idea of networked organisations from the scientific point of view on management, which provides an insight into broader ecosystems in which innovations such as digital transformation may effectively develop. The concept of relational and networking paradigms in the science of management as well as the idea of strategic management imbedded in these paradigms together with their manifestation in European cooperation projects are presented here. The second chapter presents European digital agenda as a point of reference to various activities connected with digital transformation. The core discussion in this chapter refers to the concept of digital transformation and digital maturity as sine qua non conditions for the development of educational institutions in the era of automation of production and service processes, artificial intelligence and the integration of digital tools for better effectiveness. Finally, the chapter relates all these elements and phenomena to the research on the development of educational institutions, especially higher education institutions. This part of the discussion concentrates mainly on the idea of international networking and cooperation, creating flexible didactic offer and digitalisation itself as a solution to achieve these goals. This aspect is also presented here from a historical point of view on the development of higher education institutions. The third chapter presents the research and its results on educational leaders’ effectiveness in managing and sustaining international cooperation projects during the COVID-19 pandemic. The times of pandemic turned out to be very good testing grounds for such research, as due to restrictions and bans on travel and the possibility to cooperate in a traditional way, project leaders had to suddenly change the mode of their work and operations in order to continue successfully their projects and innovative activities in their institutions. The main tool helping them in this was the use of digital solutions on a broad scale. However, the research proves that it is not only digital competences that are crucial and fundamental in such a process. Actually, effective digital transformation, or, in other words, digital maturity, is impossible to achieve without broadly defined and understood social competences. The chapter also discusses and presents research results on how the learning potential of educational leaders affects their effectiveness in their broadly understood digital transformation. Finally, the chapter shows the level of digital maturity of educational leaders based on the research data and its interpretation. 6 Introduction The fourth chapter discusses the idea of the European Universities Initiative as well as the role and development of universities participating in this initiative. The digital transformation of universities within the consortia of European Universities is presented here based on the research that refers to the strategies these universities adopt in their digital transformations, management models incorporating digital tools, digital infrastructure, human capital and its digital potential, and finally digital products and services that universities can offer to their students, or even broadly to their clients. The results of this research are confronted with the results of a similar research carried out among American universities, especially Californian universities located in the broader area of the Silicon Valley. These universities and their digital transformation are treated here as sort of a benchmark. All these discussions ultimately lead to the conclusion on digital maturity of researched universities. The fifth chapter attempts to contribute to bridging the gap between the requirements of the labour market and the educational offer at the tertiary level. The chapter presents the self-assessment tool for universities that provides them with a checklist of criteria defining universities 4.0, meaning the universities that educate and support their students in developing the competences needed in the current and future labour market. The chapter also presents a bibliometric analysis on competences 4.0 and its implications for a better understanding between the world of business and the world of education in the context of digital transformation. The discussion in this chapter also touches upon the issue of academia – business/industry cooperation and how it can be measured. The assessment tool in this respect is presented here. The whole discussion is also recapitulated here and connected to the broader idea of innovations in education and paradigm 4.0 in education. Conclusions part of the book pulls all the presented threads of the discussion together, which allows to see digital transformation and its key role players in the broad socio-economic and educational context. Finally, it must be noted that although the research on competences and digital transformation is quite rich, since both areas are important elements of human professional development, there are quite many and various competence models found in scientific literature, and discussions on digital transformation are nothing new. However, the literature review confirms that the very concept of competences 4.0 and their implementation in educational systems are relatively poorly recognised, and the literature on this specific aspect of competences is rather scarce. The situation is even worse when one tries to find research that combines the idea of competences 4.0 with digital transformation and, more broadly, with the labour market and implications of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. In fact, there is no book involving integrated research on these issues in reference to Introduction 7 educational leaders and their readiness for the current and future challenges resulting from the broader socio-economic and technological context. References Hewlett Packard Enterprise (2023). Supporting the digital transformation in the public sector. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP. Morańska, D., Ciesielska, M., & Jędrzejko, M. (2021). Edukacja w cyfrowym świecie. Edukacja 4.0. Akapit Press. Packendorff, J. (1995). Inquiring into the temporary organization: New directions for project management research. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 319–333. 8 Introduction 1 Digital transformation in education within a broader socio-economical context 1.1 Megatrends shaping the present and the future of the world of work and education Digital transformation rooted in the broader term of Industry 4.0 does not function in a vacuum. There is always a broader context that must be taken into consideration in order to get a full view of the processes that take place around us, and which have a huge impact on how we work and live. The key phenomena affecting the life of modern societies are demographic change, globalisation and technological advancement itself. This technological progress defines Industry 4.0 as automation and integration of all possible processes to an unprecedented level. This involves artificial intelligence, robotics, 3D printing and blockchain, just to mention a few, and results in low-skilled jobs being automated, creating a high demand for high-skilled jobs at the same time. Accordingly, unprecedented challenges are posed on the systems of education that need to rapidly equip students with competences relevant to live and work in the digitalised world. These competences include technological skills, media literacy, creativity, social intelligence, critical analysis, virtual collaboration and intercultural skills. The Fourth Industrial Revolution described in the subsequent subchapter, also called Industry 4.0, is very similar in its nature to the previous three industrial revolutions in that sense that it does not only bring substantial changes to the way we live and work, but it also brings the changes to the structure of work. The First Industrial Revolution, called the steam engine revolution, released workers from using muscles in the place of work to a great extent and made production processes mechanised for the first time. The Second Industrial Revolution, connected with the introduction of electricity, brought assembly lines and fostered mass production. The influence on society resulting from these two revolutions was painfully felt in the era of “fordism” which is the concept named after Henry Ford, an American car manufacturer. This concept was based on such features as the strict division of labour and automation, as well as an DOI: 10.4324/9781003482246-2 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. This actually aligns with most of the models of future competences. According to various researchers, these models are mainly based on three areas: 1 Digital competences – connected with the use of technology on different levels of advancement, the ability to solve problems using digital tools and knowledge about privacy and cybersecurity issues 2 Social and emotional competences – connected with interaction with others and coping with one’s own emotions, as well as the ability to cooperate in a group, leadership and entrepreneurship 3 Cognitive competences – connected with the ways of thinking, including processing and verifying information, creativity and critical thinking. (Hecklau, Galeitzke, Flachs and Kohl 2016; Pinzone, Fantini, Perini, Garavaglia, Taisch and Miragliotta 2017; Bawany 2017; Barata, Da Cunha and Stal 2018; Karabiegovic 2018; Erol, Jager, Hold, Ott and Sihn 2018; Imran and Kantola, 2018; Włoch and Śledziewska 2019; Ellis and Van Der Merwe 2019; Makieła, Stuss and Szczepańska-Woszczyna 2019; Zabolotniaia, Cheng and Dacko-Pikiewicz 2019; Dobrowolska and Knop 2020) This approach stems from empirical research carried out by the McKinsey Global Institute, which shows that the need for such competences of the future in the context of the industrial revolution 4.0 is on the rise in relation to the demands of the labour market (McKinsey 2018). Fitsilis, Tsoutsa and Gerogiannis postulate a comprehensive model of what they already directly call competences 4.0: 1 Technical competences, such as state-of-the-art knowledge, process understanding, technical skills, etc. 2 Methodological competences, including creativity, entrepreneurial thinking, problem solving, conflict solving, decision-making, analytical skills, research skills and efficiency orientation 3 Social competences, such as intercultural skills, language skills, communication skills, networking skills, ability to work in a team, ability to be compromising and cooperative and ability to transfer knowledge and leadership skills 4Personal competences, including flexibility, ambiguity tolerance, motivation to learn, ability to work under pressure, sustainable mindset and compliance (Fitsilis, Tsoutsa and Gerogiannis 2018; Leinweber 2013) They also add that “skills needed for industry 4.0 are numerous and diverse” and some of them, including information and communication 16 Digital transformation in education technology skills, have not been standardised yet (Fitsilis, Tsoutsa and Gerogiannis 2018). Other typologies of competences 4.0, depending on the specific contexts that they address, can also be found in the literature. Geryk (2020) and Clavert (2019) provide the list of skills or, to be more precise, constituting elements of competences needed to overcome the challenges posed by Industry 4.0 from the point of view of the higher education system. According to them, universities must equip students with new qualifications needed in the new labour market, and these qualifications should be based on skills and competences 4.0. These skills are as follows: flexibility, adaptability, technological literacy, risk-taking, business thinking and abilities connected with information management, cybersecurity, quality control and sustainability (Geryk 2020; Clavert 2019). The direct link to the broader categories of digital, cognitive, social and managerial spheres can be seen here. Furthermore, Stock and Seliger, as some of the most prolific authors on Industry 4.0, according to the bibliometric analysis carried out with the use of the Scopus database (Poszytek 2021a), enumerate the human factor as one of the most important elements in sustainable manufacturing. They attach great importance to technical skills, social skills, creativity and decentralised decision-making (Stock and Seliger 2016). Here as well, a reference to digital, cognitive, social and managerial spheres is obvious. The literature review also shows that in many cases, researchers concentrate only on selected elements, namely, skills within broader categories of competences, while discussing the concept of competences 4.0 (Priffti, Knigge, Kienegger and Kremar 2017). However, it must be noted that the above-presented models actually derive from a classical model of managerial competences, including technical, social and cognitive competences (Korzeniowski 2019). And since the study presented in this book refers to leaders, both on an individual and institutional level, the author of this study proposes the following model of competences of the future, or one can already say, competences 4.0: 1 Digital and technical competences: programming and data analysis, expertise in online privacy and cybersecurity, processing of big data sets, use of the computing clouds and the Industrial Internet of Things, integration, simulation and visualisation of processes and evaluation of technology and its products 2 Cognitive or thinking competences: creativity, logical reasoning and solving complex problems 3 Social and psychosocial competences: teamwork, team collaboration, leadership, entrepreneurship, emotional intelligence, personal flexibility, adaptability and interdisciplinarity Digital transformation in education 17 4 Managerial competences: team management and team coordination, financial management, business strategies, project management, psychology of work, organisation and management, public relations, marketing and media, managerial economy, management of human resources, managerial, leadership and entrepreneurship skills, quantitative methods and business statistics, ethics, risk management and changing management techniques in the context of social and technological change. As it will be seen in the subsequent chapters of this book, possessing some of these skills and competences is a sine qua non condition that allows leaders to introduce organisational changes in their institutions. 1.3 Leadership in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution In the light of the above-described competence models, competences 4.0 can be actually treated as the solid base of modern management. Moreover, this competence model has not been developed in a vacuum as a theoretical construct; it has evolved alongside changes in the social and work environment. And since contemporary authors perceive leadership as related to the work of competent managers whose aim should be to combine the efforts of many people targeted at achieving desired results by the organisation (Madalińska-Michalak 2018), then a clear link can be seen between modern leadership and competences. Although it is difficult to develop a single comprehensive definition of leadership because of the fact that this concept remains elusive and enigmatic (Avery 2009; MadalińskaMichalak 2018), a competence-based approach to leadership seems to be a proper solution. Furthermore, theories on leadership based on personal traits are becoming more popular than theories based on behaviour (Madalińska-Michalak 2018). Yet, as it will be shown further, current approaches to leadership do not entirely abstract from behavioural aspects. As presented in the previous subchapter, the competence 4.0 model has a strong social dimension, and even representatives of behavioural approach in management, such as Mary Parker Follett and Chester Irving Bernard, stressed the importance of such factors as proper work atmosphere, trust between managers and workers and proper communication and engagement (Lachiewicz and Matejun 2012). On the one hand, these factors are associated with behaviour, but on the other hand, they are also conditioned by the set of social competences. At this point Follett’s idea of leadership as “power with others” completes the picture where cooperation in gaining goals and objectives is the focal element of effective management. Follett’s idea with its cooperative and interactional character is well represented in the competence 4.0 model. This means that the elements of a competence-based model of leadership can be even traced in the classical approaches to 18 Digital transformation in education management. The next subchapter describes in detail current approaches to management whose networking and relational character is directly connected with digital and social competences. Some of the contemporary researchers also see effective leaders from behavioural and not only competence perspective. Although competencebased approach to leadership has a sound and solid basis according to Madalińska-Michalak (2018), behavioural dimension in scientific discussions on leadership is still present in literature such as Goffee and Jones (2006), Goleman (2011), Gundling, Hogan and Cvitkovich (2011) and Hennessy (2018). Goleman maintains that what makes a leader is, first of all, emotional intelligence. The elements of this intelligence are as follows: 1 Self-awareness – knowing one’s strengths, weaknesses, drives, values and impact on others 2 Self-regulation – controlling or redirecting disruptive impulses and moods 3 Motivation – relishing achievement for its own sake 4 Empathy – understanding other people’s emotional makeup 5 Social skill – building rapport with others to move them in desired direction. (Goleman 2011) The mix of behavioural and competence approaches to leadership can be clearly seen. Yet, Goleman himself stresses that “social skill is the culmination of the other dimensions of emotional intelligence” (Goleman 2011). From the practical perspective of the labour market, a 2019 study by Deloitte states that business needs a new leadership model, which is necessary to increase competitiveness (Deloitte 2019). Leaders nowadays are more than ever expected to be able to lead through complexity and ambiguity, to manage on a remote basis, and what is most important here is to manage workforce with a combination of humans and machines. Furthermore, modern leaders need to demonstrate sound technological skills and be able to absorb new knowledge at an unprecedented speed, which brings us back to the concept of Industry 4.0 and competences 4.0. Accordingly, today’s leadership involves a combination of traditional approaches and new competences, since leaders are expected to manage effectively, solve problems creatively, maintain operational efficiency and perform risk assessment. However, due to socio-economical context described in the previous subchapter, the pace at which they are expected to do so has changed (Jeżowski, Pachocki and Poszytek 2020). Furthermore, this paradigm shift towards leadership must be also perceived in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic which accelerated the need to develop digital skills and required social skills in the broad Digital transformation in education 19 understanding for better and more effective communication and collaboration. As a result of recent research, Ferrazzi, Gohar and Weyrich (2022) also stress the importance of collaboration and fast adaptability as some of the most important factors that underlie effectiveness in the new world of work. Both collaboration and adaptability are key pillars of the competence 4.0 model as shown in the previous subchapter. Furthermore, Hennessy (2018) claims that “leadership is, in fact, all about collaboration and teamwork”, although both of them are not something we would associate with great leaders. Similarly, Ibarra and Hansen (2020) perceive collaboration as one of the key elements that define leadership. Accordingly, there are two crucial aspects here. Firstly, current approaches in management base the concept of leadership on competences, especially social skills. Secondly, collaboration, which is a social skill within a broader framework of social competence, is the focal point of this concept. Thus, it is important to note at this point that research presented in this book is based on collaborative, innovative European projects (see Annex I for examples of selected projects contributing to the very digital transformation) and their leaders. This binds all crucial threads of the phenomenon in question, namely, leadership-driven digital transformation through innovations carried out within cross-European cooperation projects needs digital skills, but first of all it needs social skills. Accordingly, social competence becomes one of the most important pillars of competences 4.0 within a broader context of Industry 4.0. Maxwell (2020) claims and proves in his book that the growth of an organisation, which in fact means any sort of organisational change, is solely determined by the growth of its leader, or leaders. Thus, the concepts of leaders and their competences should lie in the heart of any discussion on organisational change. 1.4 Network and relational paradigm in management and educational projects The underlying idea behind the general philosophy of Industry 4.0 is the creation of an ecosystem that functions on the basis of a smart network. The smart network in this context refers to the integration of processes that lead to automation in organisations. Buchelt puts it like this: “the industrial revolution 4.0 allows products, machines, components, individuals, and systems to create smart networks, which may lead to integrate cyber-physical systems and perform more quickly by linking information and physical memory to the smart network” (Buchelt, Frączkiewicz-Wronka and Dobrowolska 2020). In the case of educational institutions, it is more appropriate to state that this integration within a network should lead to better effectiveness of the operations, improved results and innovations. 20 Digital transformation in education Consequently, network and relational paradigms in management apply here, and their assumptions constitute a solid basis for implementing innovative organisational change. Gaining a satisfactory level of digital maturity among universities in the context of technological advancements and lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic remains a challenge worldwide. However, the idea of forming alliances supported by technology for better communication, effectiveness and synergy of processes to achieve a competitive advantage and implement innovation is not new from the perspective of management studies. This concept is based on business models dating back to the late 20th century, which laid the foundations for network and relational paradigms in management. It serves as a response to the challenge of functioning effectively, developing and implementing innovation for a competitive advantage in turbulent, uncertain and demanding times – the COVID-19 pandemic certainly constituted a testing ground for this concept. The answer to this kind of challenge so far suggests that a competitive advantage is achieved by creating a network of internationally dispersed units that complement each other with expertise and form a unique mix of competences, allowing them to build up excellence in a chosen domain. A key factor leading to success in this respect is the use of technology, providing a platform for effective communication and cooperation through knowledge sharing and enhancing organisational and innovative potential (Borgatti and Foster 2003; Czakon 2011; Wieland and Wallenburg 2012; Stańczyk-Hugiet 2012; Woźniak-Sobczak 2015). In the case of universities, this innovative potential includes administration, research and didactic spheres. The research shows that this kind of network and relational paradigm in managing innovative educational projects, with the extensive use of technology within all sectors of education, also proved effective during the COVID-19 pandemic (Poszytek 2021b). In the postpandemic era, this relational and networking paradigm is flourishing within the world of academia and provides assumptions that underlie organisational change of modern universities. The relations and interlinks between relational and network paradigms in management form a varied and complex realm of approaches. For the purpose of this publication, it is worth providing some of the aspects of this realm. The relational view in the science of management was introduced by Dyer and Singh (1998:660–679). As stated above, this view postulates knowledge sharing within units of an organisation and building relations inside and outside of it in order to enhance competitive potential and effectiveness. However, some researchers claim that the relational view is an integral part of the network paradigm. Thus, the relational view is classified here as a partial paradigm within the broader context of the network paradigm, where both form a certain sort of holistic paradigm. Digital transformation in education 21 Furthermore, the ability to create and maintain relations is a fundamental competence of network organisations (Woźniak-Sobczak 2015). Thorelli (1986) also represents this view and states that inter-organisational networks are usually defined as two or more organisations engaged in long-term relations. What is more, the use of relational and network mechanism by various sort of organisations is becoming a standard nowadays (Stańczyk-Hugiet 2012). Accordingly, a few crucial threads of our discussion come together here. The research in this book is based on European cooperation projects within the Erasmus+ Programme. These projects form and constitute relational and network ecosystems for cooperation which is mainly based on the use of digital tools. And this cooperation usually takes the form of strategic partnerships, which on the more practical level leads us towards strategic management, which is a relatively new discipline of practice and theory in management as such. Strategic management’s core assumption is that current, modern organisations cannot be competitive and effective without a strategy and plans for its realisation. What is more, organisations, which implement strategic management, usually adopt the network and relational perspective in their activities (Stańczyk-Hugiet 2012). This approach brings strategic management into line with the network and relational paradigms. Furthermore, four main approaches can be distinguished within strategic management: (1) a planning one, (2) a positional one, (3) a resource-based one and (4) an evolutionary one (Stańczyk-Hugiet 2012). The planning approach prefers a formalised planning system and SWOT analysis (Stabryła and Walas-Trębacz 2018). These two features correspond to the character of Erasmus+ projects very well because the selection and granting procedure in the Erasmus+ Programme is mainly based on the assessment of project plans and their structure. Moreover, Erasmus+ project consortia are encouraged to implement the analysis of strengths and weaknesses by various handbooks and guidelines on Erasmus+ project management in order to avoid failures. SWOT analysis aims at helping Erasmus+ project leaders to identify threats and plan remedial activities if necessary. The positional approach, on the other hand, concentrates on the need to carry out diagnostic research in order to see how an organisation places itself in reference to other organisations. Its aim is also to seek a competitive advantage (Stabryła and Walas-Trębacz 2018). In the case of Erasmus+ projects, it is the search for an organisation’s own way to become innovative. The main aim in such cases is to introduce innovative solutions that others do not offer. Erasmus+ projects also well exemplify the resource-based dimension of the phenomenon in the context of inter-organisational relations as strategic resources. This aspect of strategic management refers to Erasmus+ projects as organisations composed of several various partners whose alliance is based on 22 Digital transformation in education complementary expertise and resources. And lastly, the evolutionary approach within the relational and network paradigms manifests itself in current business ecosystems that form complex networks and relations (Zakrzewska-Bielawska 2015), which, again, refers directly to the core feature and nature of Erasmus+ projects. For Stead and Stead (2008:66), the evolutionary perspective connected with relational and network paradigms brings modern organisations directly to strategic management. Regardless of the approach within the concept of strategic management, the landscape of scientific discussions on the very definition of the notion of strategy is also very diverse and not necessarily homogenous (Krzakiewicz and Cyfert 2020). Yet, Krzakiewicz and Cyfert (2020) list six fundamental aspects of the notion of strategy in management after Gołębiowski (2001). These are aims, a plan, relations with the environment, a business area, competitive advantage and market positioning and stakeholders. These aspects actually constitute a comprehensive definition of what Erasmus+ projects are. A successful Erasmus+ project needs to have clearly defined aims and goals, a plan specifying subsequent stages of project realisation, including task division, budget distribution, results dissemination and information strategy as well as an evaluation plan. The consortium of project partners needs to describe relations within a group, the complementarity of expertise and dissemination and information plan. The consortium also has to show how their activities or products developed within a project position them as innovative in their business area and how they engage or address various stakeholders in their field of activities. Since the COVID-19 pandemic also constitutes a specific sort of context in this discussion, the concept of adaptability to a new challenging situation must be mentioned here. Czakon (2020) states that the fitting of an organisation to the environment is one of very few normative notions in strategic management. This notion refers to the effective use of both resources and competences regarding possible threats (Czakon 2020). The relevance of this aspect is fundamental for the research on how competences facilitate the successful realisation of Erasmus+ projects during the COVID-19 pandemic, which is presented in Chapter 3. Similarly, Dyduch (2013) points to flexibility as an important aspect of strategic management. He defines flexibility as a strategy of changing the direction of activities and a prompt adoption of activities in new conditions (Dyduch 2013; Chell 2001). Accordingly, it should be stated that international cooperation within Erasmus+ innovative projects, including the European Universities Initiative, forms an appropriate ecosystem for implementing organisational change and achieving digital maturity. This view is supported not only by the theories drawn from the analogous area of the business world of operations but also by the research presented in this book, although the speed and level of Digital transformation in education 23 advancement in some aspects of this process may not necessarily be fully satisfactory. Yet, what we observe in efforts on the part of educational institutions, especially higher education ones, to become more competitive can be called a renaissance of relational and network paradigms. Modern innovative educational leaders, whether individuals or institutions, must function within international networks to be competitive in the educational market. Such networks foster the development and implementation of digital solutions, contributing significantly towards the digital maturity of educational organisations. Furthermore, functioning in these networks and performing administrative, didactic, and research operations within a relational mode make these organisations true leaders of paradigm 4.0 in education. References Aljarrah, A., Ababneh, M., Karagozlu, D., & Ozdamli, F. (2021). Artificial intelligence techniques for distance education: A systematic literature review. Tem JournalTechnology Education Management Informatics, 10(4), 1621–1629. 10.18421/TEM1 04-18. Avery, G. C. (2009). Przywództwo w organizacji: paradygmaty i studia przypadków. Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne. Barata, J., Da Cunha, P. R., & Stal, J. (2018). Mobile supply chain management in the Industry 4.0 era. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 31, 173–192. Bawany, S. (2017). The future of leadership in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Leadership. Excellence. Essentials, 2017, 12. Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology, Pergamon. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991–1013. Buchelt, B., Frączkiewicz-Wronka, A., & Dobrowolska, M. (2020). The organizational aspect of human resource management as a determinant of the potential of Polish hospitals to manage medical professionals in Healthcare 4.0. Sustainability, 12(12), 5118. 10.3390/su12125118. Chell, E. (2001). Entrepreneurship: Globalization, innovation and development. Thomson Learning. Clavert, M. (2019). Foreword: Universities of the future. Industry 4.0 implications for higher education institutions. Retrieved from: https://universitiesofthefuture.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2019/02/State-of-Maturity_Report.pdf (accessed on 1 May 2021). Czakon, W. (2011). Paradygmat sieciowy w naukach o zarządzaniu. Przegląd Organizacji, No. 11. Czakon, W. (2020). Krótkowzroczność strategiczna menedżerów. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Deloitte. (2019). Human capital trends report. Deloitte. Dobrowolska, M., & Knop, L. (2020). Fit to work in the business models of the Industry 4.0 age. Sustainability, 12(12), 4854. 10.3390/su12124854. Dyduch, W. (2013). Twórcza strategia organizacji. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, (4), 660–679. 24 Digital transformation in education Ellis, A., & Van Der Merwe, A. F. (2019). Human expertise in additive manufacturing digitalization, the future of manufacturing layer by layer, establishing the 3D process chain, Proceedings of the 20th Annual International RAPSADA Conference, Emoya Estate, Bloemfontein, South Africa, 6–8 November 2019; RAPSADA: Bloemfontein, South Africa, 2019, pp. 163–170. Erol, S., Jager, A., Hold, P., Ott, K., & Sihn, W. (2018). Tangible Industry 4.0: A scenario-based approach to learning for the future of production. Procedia CIRP, 2018(54), 13–18. Ferrazzi, K., Gohar, K., & Weyrich, N. (2022). Competing in the new world of work. How radical adaptability separates the best from the rest. Harvard Business Review Press. Fitsilis, P., Tsoutsa, P., & Gerogiannis, V. (2018). Industry 4.0: Required personnel competences. International Scientific Journal Industry 4.0, 3(3), 130–131. Geryk, M. (2020). Challenges posed for universities by the Industry 4.0 environment. In P. Buła and B. Nogalski (Eds.), The future of Management Industry 4.0 and digitalization (pp. 141–148). Jagiellonian University Press. Gilchrist, A. (2016). Industry 4.0: The industrial Internet of Things. Springer Science and Business Media, Apress. Gladwin, L. A. (1984). The impact of artificial intelligence on training. Training & Development Journal, 38(12), 46–47. Goena, J. I. T., Lleo de Nalda, A., Diez, E. V., & Garcia, J. S. (2018). Professional Competences 4.0. Tecnun Universidad de Navarra. Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2006). Why should anyone be lead by you? What It takes to be an authentic leader. Harvard Business Review Press. Goleman, D. (2011). What makes a leader. On leadership. Harvard Business Review Press. Gołębiowski, T. (2001). Zarządzanie strategiczne. Planowanie i kontrola. Difin. Górka, K., Thier, A., & Łuszczyk, M. (2020). Consequences of the Fourth Industrial Revolution in social and economic development in the 21st century. In P. Buła and B. Nogalski (Eds.), The future of management Industry 4.0 and digitalization (pp. 60–71). Jagiellonian University Press. Gundling, E., Hogan, T., & Cvitkovich, K. (2011). What is global leadership? 10 key behaviors that define great global leaders. Nicolas Brealey Publishing. Harvey, W., & SRI International. (1985). Designing educational software for tomorrow. SRI International. Hecklau, F., Galeitzke, M., Flachs, S., & Kohl, H. (2016). Holistic approach for human resource management in Industry 4.0. Procedia CIRP, 2016 (54), 1–6. Hennessy, J. L. (2018). Leading matters. Stanford University Press. Husby, O. (1990). Library automation. Higher Education Management, 2(3), 299–309. Ibarra, H., & Hansen, M. T. (2020). Are you a collaborative leader? On Leadership (Vol. 2). Harvard Business Review Press. Imran, F., & Kantola, J. (2018). Review of Industry 4.0 in the light of sociotechnical system theory and competence-based view: A future research agenda for the evolute approach. Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Orlando, FL, USA, 21–25 July 2018. Springer: Cham. Jeschke, S., Brecher, C., Song, H., & Rawat, D. B. (Eds.) (2017). Industrial Internet of Things, Springer series in wireless technology. Springer International Publishing. Jeżowski, M., Pachocki, M., & Poszytek, P. (2020). Review on leadership in education, business and community on the verge of the 4th Industrial Revolution. The 11th International Multi-Conference on Complexity, Informatics and Digital transformation in education 25 Accordingly, Erasmus+ Programme is the European Commission’s main tool for the implementation of these aims. Erasmus+ Programme realises this agenda on two levels. On the one hand, it contributes to the competences development of individuals through participation in international mobility and blended learning that helps to develop digital skills, and on the other hand, it provides funds for the realisation and implementation of innovative projects and strategic partnerships either aimed at designing and implementing new digital solutions as the ones mentioned above, or using digital tools for better effectiveness. Accordingly, the study presented in the next two chapters of this book can also be perceived from a much broader perspective: the digital maturity of educational leaders as a tangible sign of digital transformation within organisations conditions the development of digital economy, which is the EU’s primary goal in its digital agenda. 2.2 Digital transformation and digital maturity Digital transformation is a process that is characterised by the use of digital technologies to achieve better efficiency, organisational potential and business results (Liu, Chen and Chou 2011; Westerman, Calmejane and Bonnet 2011). Others add that this process is also defined by digitalisation of analogue resources, cost reduction and acceleration of processes (Collin, Hiekkanen and Korhonen 2015; Kane, Palmer and Phillips 2015). Digital transformation can also enable and enhance organisations, including universities, to expand their communication with stakeholders (Berman 2012). All these benefits of digital transformation are discussed in detail in Lis (2023). Most scientific models point out three areas of digital transformation in organisations: (1) external – new products for customers; (2) internal – new operations, decision processes and new organisational structures; and (3) holistic – new business models (Hess, Matt and Benlian 2016; Kaufman and Horton 2015; Schuchmann and Seufert 2015). Others formulate it slightly differently but practically refer to the same areas: (1) internal efficiency thanks to digital solutions; (2) new business opportunities; and (3) digitalisation leading to the transformation of roles, functions and business models (Parvianen, Kaarianen and Tihinen 2017). Still, at the more general level, the aims of digitalisation are to (1) create values within the new frontiers of the business world; (2) make the processes more effective and efficient in client–organisation or client–product relations; and (3) build foundational digital capabilities (Dorner and Edelman 2015). Crucially, digitalisation leads to a fundamental change in the way organisations conduct business operations and introduces new business models based on new knowledge within a new digital ecosystem (Schallmo and Williams 2018). In the context 32 Creating an innovative ecosystem in educational institutions of this study, this obviously refers to educational institutions that need to transform from the organisational point of view as a result of the requirements of Industry 4.0. Moreover, as already explained, this transformation is a must, not only because of a new digital ecosystem but also due to the broader socio-economic context. Putting all these threads together, the author of this book proposes the following areas of digital transformation within educational institutions: (1) the use of technology for smoother operations and the comfort of workers (e.g. university employees: lecturers, educational project leaders, administration staff, etc.); (2) new business models, for example, blended learning, flexible didactic offers, generally new forms of governance within administration, research and didactics realised within international networks, etc.; and (3) new services for clients/students, for example, online courses, digitalised resources, virtual campuses, etc. (Poszytek 2022). These three areas are researched in the second part of this study in the context of the European Universities Initiative. However, it must be stressed at this point that the very process of digital transformation does not necessarily lead to change (Mazurek 2020). The tangible sign of digital transformation is digital maturity, which means the extent to which organisations develop their digital potential. There are a few ways to measure digital maturity: (1) descriptive: assessment of the actual state of digital potential within an organisation measured against established criteria using a diagnostic tool; (2) prescriptive: assessment of the relations between effectiveness and organisational dimensions (e.g. digital resources); and (3) comparative: comparison between different practices in different organisations (Becker, Knackstedt and Poppelbus 2009). The study in this book follows the first and partially the third of these methods. 2.3 Higher education of the future in the context of Industry 4.0 The thinking of researchers on development of future universities reflects both competences 4.0, or competences of the future, and the idea of networks described above. The direction of the development of higher education institutions in the broader socio-economic context, as already outlined here, is presented by Ehlers and Kellermann (2019) and Ehlers (2020). It is based on four main drivers of change in the higher education sector, which are necessary for higher education institutions to adjust to the requirements of Industry 4.0. Accordingly, it is maintained that the organisational development of universities will follow such scenarios as the following: • University based on skills of the future, assuming a paradigm shift and moving away from the transmission of knowledge towards the development of the competences of the future, including primarily the ability to solve Creating an innovative ecosystem in educational institutions 33 complex problems, dealing with uncertainty and developing a sense of responsibility. Consequently, competences 4.0 are nowadays becoming the prerequisite for success for all graduates of higher education institutions entering the labour market. • Network-based higher education, which requires not only learning in a network of several universities but also the exchange of digital educational offerings. This also means that the higher education institutions themselves have to play a key role in this transformation. They are becoming more and more networked, creating cooperation units built from a few, often international universities. The European Universities Initiative is an example of good practice here, and the research part of this study also targets this initiative. • Education based on a tailored offering, which involves students themselves in the process of curricula creation to give them a flexible, personalised and participatory education offer based on the use of high technology that allows this flexibility. • Higher education as part of the lifelong learning framework, based on the assumption that many students are already active in the labour market and therefore require a teaching offer tailored to their professional needs. Schatt goes even further and claims that a four-year college programme will not be adequate for the world of work a decade later after graduation. In order to be employable, people will need flexible, short-term learning opportunities to gain some familiarity, especially with new technologies (Schatt 2023:136). This shift observed in the development of higher education institutions, from isolated universities towards cooperating and exchanging units with the use of technology, is indeed the answer to changing expectations from learners and the university staff and the requirements of Industry 4.0. Sułkowski calls this shift the fourth wave. According to his typology, the development of universities from a historical perspective can be perceived as the subsequent waves of change: • First wave: in the period from the Middle Ages to the Age of Enlightenment, universities were established by kings and popes, boasting relatively high independence and were truly internationalised, with some trends to become more national during the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment. • Second wave: in the period of the reforms of academic education in Germany in the 19th century, universities followed the ideas of the Age of Enlightenment, where culture-creating aspect and building national identity became two important paradigms. One of the embodiments of this approach was the Humboldtian University. 34 Creating an innovative ecosystem in educational institutions • Third wave: in the middle of the 20th century, the post-Humboldtian era brought the changes to the organisation of universities resulting from commercialisation of education and research, the development of private universities, the growing competition in the education market and closer cooperation between higher education and business for better profits from research. Accordingly, the business and management model at universities started to shift towards a corporate type. The main characteristics of such universities are entrepreneurship, effective and integrated management, competitiveness, cooperation with the broader ecosystem and innovation. • Fourth wave: the current, modern universities in which organisational changes follow the logic of global changes connected with networking and digitalisation (Sułkowski 2022:19–34). Accordingly, technology and digital transformation are key elements in the overall organisational changes at universities nowadays. Latusek-Jurczak (2019:169) claims that technology enhances and fosters interactions within virtual and temporary organisations. As will be shown in the research part, European collaborative and cooperation projects, which are forms of temporary organisations, are the driving forces behind the processes of organisational change. This also implies that digital competences, and consequently, the social ones, are expected to facilitate the sustainability of this transformation, for which the times of the COVID-19 pandemic were a testing ground. Again, the empirical part of this book proves it. In this sense, digital transformation is not only imposed by the requirements of Industry 4.0, but it is also urgently needed to maintain sustainability in times of crisis. Furthermore, digital transformation should lead to the adaptation of a new business model that is resilient in the context of the broader ecosystem (Mazurek 2020:71). This broader context also means the need for networking and digitalisation of whole societies resulting from the dynamics of global changes (Strielkowski and Wang 2020:1–4). Generally speaking, the fundamental attribute of organisations of the future is the ability to change. The need for this ability results from the growing importance of gaining a competitive advantage in increasingly global and competitive environments. This context requires, first of all, technological flexibility and fast reactions to changes in the environment on the part of organisations (Barczak, Bartusik and Kozina 2018:389). This ability, as an organisational feature, is fundamental in the context of the research presented further in this book, as it refers to both competences and networking as key drivers for success. Taking into account that the idea of competences of the future, as well as the development of effective networks depend substantially on the use of technology, we arrive at the point at which all these three domains, namely, Creating an innovative ecosystem in educational institutions 35 competences 4.0, business model based on networking and digital transformation, come together as one matrix, which is the base for the overall development of effective and successful organisations of the future. The subsequent chapters of this book will show how research proves this overarching thesis. References Barczak, B., Bartusik, K., & Kozina, A. (2018). Organizacja ucząca się. In A. Stabryła (Ed.), Podstawy organizacji i zarządzania. Podejścia i koncepcje badawcze (pp. 389–403). Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie. Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., & Poppelbus, J. (2009). Developing maturity models for IT management. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 1(3), 213–222. Berman, S. J. (2012). Digital transformation. Opportunities to create new business models. Strategy & Leadership, 40(2), 16–24. Collin, J., Hiekkanen, K., & Korhonen, J. (2015). IT leadership in transition – the impact of digitalization on Finnish organisations. Aalto Univ. Publication series: Science + Technology, no 7. Dorner, K., & Edelman, D. (2015). What “digital” really means. Retrieved from: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/technology-media-and-telecommunications/ our-insights/what-digital-really-means. Ehlers, U.-D., & Kellermann, S. A. (2019). Future skills – the future of learning and higher education. Results of the International Future Skills Delphi Survey. NextSkills. Ehlers, U.-D. (2020). Future skills – the future of learning and higher education. NextSkills. European Commission. (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Supporting Growth and Jobs: An Agenda for the Modernisation of Europe’s Higher Education Systems. COM/2011/0567. European Parliament. (2023). Digital agenda for Europe. European Parliament. Hess, T., Matt, C., & Benlian, A. (2016). Options for formulating digital transformation strategy. MIS Quarterly Executive, 15(2), 123–139. Kane, G., Palmer, D., & Phillips, A. (2015). Strategy not technology, drives digital transformation. MIT Sloan Management Review, no 14. Deloitte Univ. Press Kaufman, I., & Horton, C. (2015). Digital transformation: Leveraging digital technology with core values to achieve sustainable business goals. The European Financial Review, December–January, pp. 63–67. Latusek-Jurczak, D. (2019). Zaufanie w zarządzaniu organizacjami. PWN. Lis, M. (2023). Higher education institutions and digital transformation. Building university and enterprise collaborative relationships. Routledge. Liu, D. Y., Chen, S. W., & Chou, T. C. (2011). Resource fit in digital transformation: Lessons learned from the CBC Bank global e-banking project. Management Decision, 49(11), 1728–1742. Mazurek, G. (2020). Transformacja cyfrowa. Perspektywa marketingu. PWN. Parvianen, P., Kaarianen, J., & Tihinen, M. (2017). Tackling the digitalization challenge: How to benefit from digitalization in practice. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, 5(1), 66. Poszytek, P. (2022). Digital transformation of educational institutions – are we ready for effective and sustainable functioning in the post COVID-19 pandemic world? Plenary speech at the 13th International Multi-Conference on Complexity, 36 Creating an innovative ecosystem in educational institutions Informatics and Cybernetics: IMCIC 2022, International Institute of Informatics and Cybernetics, Orlando, USA Retrieved from: https://www.iiis.org/CDs2022/ CD2022Spring/bookZ1.htm. Schallmo, D. R. A., & Williams, A. (2018). Digital transformation now! Guiding the successful digitalization of your business model. Springerbriefs in Business. Springer. Schatt, S. (2023). Still room for humans, career planning in an AI world. Business Expert Press. Schuchmann, D., & Seufert, S. (2015). Corporate learning in times of digital transformation: A conceptual framework and service portfolio for the learning function in banking organizations. International Journal of Automation and Computing, 8(1), 31–40. Strielkowski, W., & Wang, J. (2020). An introduction: COVID-19 pandemic and academic leadership. 6th International Conference on Social, Economic and Academic Leadership, ICSEAL-6-2019 (pp. 1–4). Atlantis Press. Sułkowski, Ł. (2022). Zarządzanie uczelnią cyfrową. Między utopią wolności a dystopią wiedzy. PWN. Śledziewska, K., & Włoch, R. (2021). The economics of digital transformation. The disruption of markets, production, consumption, and work. Routledge. Tapscott, D. (1995). The digital economy: Rethinking promise and peril in the age of networked intelligence. McGraw-Hill. Westerman, G., Calmejane, C., & Bonnet, D. (2011). Digital transformation: A roadmap for billion dollar organizations. MIT Sloan Management Review. Creating an innovative ecosystem in educational institutions 37 3 The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic 3.1 Educational leaders’ effectiveness in managing and sustaining international cooperation projects during the COVID-19 pandemic The times of the COVID-19 pandemic and the challenges connected with sustaining international cooperation within European projects, or temporary organisations as they might be called, can be treated as a unique opportunity to research on relational and network paradigms in management. Since these paradigms were implemented in the science of management as an answer to unstable socio-economic and political situations (Borgatti and Foster 2003; Stead and Stead 2008; Czakon 2011; Woźniak-Sobczak 2015), it seems plausible to test their assumptions in practice during the crisis evoked by the pandemic. The relational and network paradigms, as well as their postulates for strategic management, assume that in current and difficult-to-anticipate social, economic and political conditions, effectiveness and competitive advantage on the market can be achieved through implementing a proper organisational structure. Such a structure is based on specialist, nonhierarchical, dispersed and complementary units that work together with the use of high technology to achieve better results. The analogy to the functioning of Erasmus+ projects as temporary organisations is obvious here since the aim of Erasmus+ projects is to design, develop and implement new products and services for the educational market. Besides, Erasmus+ projects and their leaders are a perfect research target group because they fulfil all the criteria enlisted in literature (Kast and Rosenzweig 1970; Thorelli 1986; Jarillo 1988; Powell 1990; Miles and Snow 1992; Packendorff 1995; Achrol 1997; Van Alstyne 1997; Podolny and Page 1998; Palmer and Richards 1999; Birkinshaw and Hagstrom 2000; Rice and Gattiker 2000; Baker and Faulkner 2002; Czakon 2012; Wieland and Wallenburg 2012; Stańczyk-Hugiet 2012; Woźniak-Sobczak 2015; Sułkowski 2015; Beliczyński 2018; Stabryła, Tyrańska and Walas-Trębacz 2018). These criteria and organisational features are as follows: DOI: 10.4324/9781003482246-4 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. • Dispersed, non-hierarchical character of business partnerships, and voluntary character • The use of digital tools connecting partners within an organisation and digital competences that allow effective communication and coordination • Complementary mix of competences – modern international businesses and organisations use the complementarity of expertise of their constituting partners and units • Communicative aspect of effective cooperation in which social competences play a crucial role • Relationship between partners where social competences are the key to success; • Adaptability and flexibility which are also elements of social competences • Learning organisations in order to survive in a constantly changing environment, modern organisations need to learn all the time. Erasmus+ projects are clearly formal, dispersed, networked, learning and collaborative organisations established for gaining specific social and business aims. On a more practical level, the research in this part of the study concentrated on digital and social competences and how they enabled educational leaders and their organisations to manage, sustain their activities and gain a competitive advantage in difficult times, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted mobility and the ease of communication in big and dispersed organisational structures. Social competence, though considered as a contextual factor, along with digital competence, is a prerequisite for digital transformation from the skills perspective. If we treat digital competence as the technical side of this transformation, or a specific kind of “hardware” competence, then social competence should be treated as “software” and the driving force behind operations based on technology. The use of technology does not function in a vacuum – it has a purpose: more effective communication and collaboration. The communicative and collaborative aspect can be seen, for example, in reference to organising and administering online courses, virtual labs and virtual campuses, where effective communication between students, academic staff or administration, as well as communication with individuals or institutions from outside an organisation using technologies, is fundamental. Here, not only digital competences are required but also social competences connected with the ability to communicate, maintain contacts and adapt quickly to new situations and challenges if required. This study also takes into consideration other contextual, from the point of view of this study, and typical features of networked organisations enlisted above. The research matter forms here the realm which can be depicted as follows: networked organisations need technology for more The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic 39 effective operations, which results from their dispersed character. The use of technology for communication and cooperation requires both digital and social competence. Finally, achieving synergy for a competitive advantage requires complementarity of expertise and competences, which in turn is fostered by working and learning together in a flexible way. Accordingly, the following research primarily focuses on digital competence but also considers other elements that contribute to organisational effectiveness, as digital maturity is measured by the level of this effectiveness. It is worth adding here that bibliometric analysis has proven that this part of the study fills a research gap in the following areas: • In-depth analysis and extensive research on the management of Erasmus + projects • The use of predictive analysis in research on Erasmus+ projects • Verifying the thesis that competences 4.0, especially digital and social ones, facilitate the sustainability of temporary organisations such as Erasmus+ projects in difficult times. Accordingly, the first research of this study attempted to measure educational leaders’ digital maturity through their effectiveness in managing and sustaining international cooperation projects during the COVID-19 pandemic. It must be noted at this point that the data used in this research was collected for previously published research aimed at assessing European project leaders’ competences 4.0 and the influence of these competences on project leaders’ performance during the COVID-19 pandemic (Poszytek 2021b). In this case, this data turned out extremely useful for carrying out separate research on European project leaders’ digital maturity and digital transformation within their institutions. Furthermore, in this case, different approaches, techniques and calculations were used, which contributes significantly to the validity of both studies since no contradictory conclusions could be reported as a result of these two different research activities. The research was carried out among almost 3,000 project leaders within the Erasmus+ Programme coming from public, NGO and private sectors. About 1,072 project leaders responded, out of which 990 fulfilled the criteria and were introduced into the final research group. This actually means that the research was not carried out on a sample of projects but on a substantial part of the whole “universe” of these temporary organisations. Most of the project coordinators (80%) come from the public sector. NGOs and the private sector are represented by 13% and 7% of the respondents, respectively, which reflects the participation distribution structure of Erasmus+ participants’ profiles. Out of the 990 qualified respondents, 422 come from the school sector, 233 from the vocational sector, 141 from higher education 40 The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic institutions, 128 from the youth sector and 98 from the adult education sector. All these respondents cover all Erasmus+ Programme actions. In most cases, projects were realised within a group of one to three international partners. 16% of the respondents confirmed that their project included over five partners from abroad. 26% of the project leaders coordinated two or three projects simultaneously, whereas 67% coordinated only one project. 52% of the respondents managed the project independently, and 48% shared coordination responsibilities. An online questionnaire (see Annex II – the full version of the survey questionnaire) in the form of computer-assisted web interviewing (CAWI) was used for the research. The online questionnaire consisted mainly of closed questions, but in some cases, there were also openended questions, making a total of 70 questions. The questions covered various aspects, including the process of projects’ realisation during the COVID-19 pandemic, difficulties, challenges and the solutions implemented by project leaders. Some questions directly referred to the project leaders themselves and their personal features in the context of their declared level of digital, managerial, cognitive and social competences. The study showed that assessing digital maturity cannot be done by considering only digital competences and neglecting the social aspect of the phenomenon. This approach is also present in various theoretical models (Hecklau, Galeitzke, Flachs and Kohl 2016; Pinzone, Fantini, Perini, Garavaglia, Taisch and Miragliotta 2017; Bawany 2017; Barata, Da Cunha and Stal 2018; Karabiegović 2018; Erol, Jager, Hold, Ott and Sihn 2018; Imran and Kantola 2018; Włoch and Śledziewska 2019; Ellis and Van Der Merwe 2019; Makieła, Stuss and Szczepańska-Woszczyna 2019; Zabolotniaia, Cheng and Dacko-Pikiewicz 2019; Dobrowolska and Knop 2020). Most of the questions were based on the Likert-type scale to measure the intensification and level of certain features, in this case, competences. Other questions that were not based on the Likert-type scale were mostly contextual. The research tool aimed to assess the extent to which respondents agreed or disagreed with relevant issues included in subsequent questions. All indicator questions were coded in such a way that the value 1 means the lowest level of the assessed feature, and the value 5 means its highest level. All questions with inverted scales were re-coded to maintain the cohesion of the analysis. The objective of the research was not to measure the level of each competence in an individual case of each project leader but to assess to what extent individual competences are useful in managing and sustaining projects during the COVID-19 pandemic. The research was based on declarative data, where the respondents assessed the level of their competences themselves through various indicators. Some questions aimed directly at eliciting the answer if, according to the respondents, a certain feature or competence was useful and helpful in the management of the projects. The The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic 41 N = 220) and best performers in digital competences (upper quartile; N = 255) in order to compare how these two groups performed during the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to their projects’ sustainability. Overall, 21% of the best digital performers suspended or prolonged their Erasmus + projects. In the group of worst digital performers, this value rose up to 29%. This observation addresses the main issue of Erasmus+ projects’ sustainability during the COVID-19 pandemic and is reflected in Table 3.6. Table 3.4 Cronbach’s alpha value for digital and social competences’ dimensions Competences Dimensions Cronbach’s alpha Digital The use of computers in everyday work 0.91 Work with online documents 0.85 Social Relationship and emotions 0.81 Adaptability and managing stress during the pandemic 0.80 Maintaining contacts, cooperation 0.72 Communication 0.74 Source: Own work. Table 3.5 Distribution of Erasmus+ project leaders’ digital competences in percentiles No. of respondents 990 Average score 4.3316 Median 4.3750 Minimal score 2.06 Maximum score 5.00 Percentiles 25 4.0000 50 4.3750 75 4.7500 Source: Own work. 48 The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic 3.2.2.4 Finding possible relationship between the level of Erasmus+ project leaders’ digital competences and social competences in the context of project sustainability The next step was to establish the relationship between the level of Erasmus + project leaders’ digital competences and the levels of their social competences in the context of Erasmus+ projects’ sustainability (Table 3.7). These results lead to the following conclusions: in both groups, low digital competences correlate with low social competences, and high digital competences correlate with high social competences. This correlation is not surprising since Erasmus+ projects are typical temporary international Table 3.6 Status of the Erasmus+ project in distinguished quartiles of the opinions of the project leaders on their digital competences Digital competences Project status N % Worst digital performers: below first quartile Project finished or ongoing 156 70.9 Project suspended or prolonged 64 29.1 Best digital performers: above third quartile Project finished or ongoing 201 78.8 Project suspended or prolonged 54 21.2 Source: Own work. Table 3.7 Worst and best digital performers among Erasmus+ project leaders and their social competences Digital competences Social relationship and emotions (dimension 1) Social adaptability and managing stress during the pandemic (dimension 2) Social maintaining contacts, cooperation (dimension 3) Social communication (dimension 4) Worst digital performers: below first quartile 3.7236 1.7080 3.7015 3.3942 Best digital performers: above third quartile 4.1073 1.8559 4.1190 3.7922 Source: Own work. The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic 49 organisations of a relational and networking character. It also indicates that during the times of the COVID-19 pandemic, which posed challenges in relation to effective cooperation and communication, maintaining contacts, cooperation, communication and the ability to adapt quickly were facilitated by a broadly understood digital competence. Both digital and social competences enabled effective collaboration in the case of a breakdown in personal contacts. Accordingly, digital and social competences, as reflected in the data presented above, provide a specific protective shield for educational organisations against the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. 3.2.2.5 Finding possible relationship between the level of Erasmus+ project leaders’ digital competences and contextual factors in the context of project sustainability Competences as such do not function in a vacuum, and the assessment of how Erasmus+ project leaders’ competences facilitate the sustainability of their projects should also consider other contextual factors, such as the age of a project leader, sex, work experience, type of institution, number of partners in a project or project budget. The retrieved and processed data in this respect shows that the above-mentioned moderators have almost identical distributions in both researched groups. However, slight differences were observed in relation to project leaders’ age. The young leaders and men declared slightly higher digital competences, but there was no significant relationship with projects’ sustainability. For a better insight into other possible contextual factors that may have an influence on Erasmus+ projects’ sustainability during the COVID-19 pandemic, the respondents’ answers to questionnaire have been used once again. In Table 3.8, the distribution of answers in both analysed categories Table 3.8 Distribution of answers to the questions on contextual factors of the project sustainability in both categories of Erasmus+ project leaders Contextual factors of the project sustainability Quartile Answers N % The effectiveness of conducted projects during the COVID-19 pandemic Question 1: In your opinion, to what extent the project activities conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic were implemented successfully? Worst digital performers: below first quartile Maximum in 25% 88 40.0 Maximum in 50% 53 24.1 (Continued) 50 The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic Table 3.8 (Continued) Contextual factors of the project sustainability Quartile Answers N % Maximum in 75% 28 12.7 Between 75% and 100% 51 23.2 Best digital performers: above third quartile Maximum in 25% 93 36.5 Maximum in 50% 45 17.6 Maximum in 75% 43 16.9 Between 75% and 100% 74 29.0 The quality of management Question 2: Please, undertake a self-evaluation and generally rate your work as a project coordinator. Worst digital performers: below first quartile 3 Sufficient 23 10.5 4 Good 144 65.5 5 Very good 30 13.6 Difficult to say 23 10.5 Best digital performers: above third quartile 1 Very poor 1 .4 3 Sufficient 5 2.0 4 Good 111 43.5 5 Very good 114 44.7 Difficult to say 24 9.4 The quality of management Development of human capital Adaptability Question 3: With regard to yourself, do you have a sense of continuous learning, or do you tend to rely on previously acquired knowledge and skills? Worst digital performers: below first quartile Yes, I’m still developing 105 47.7 I’m still developing, but more slowly than I used to 114 51.8 (Continued) The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic 51 Table 3.8 (Continued) Contextual factors of the project sustainability Quartile Answers N % I have no need for development – I rely on previously acquired knowledge and skills 1 0.5 Best digital performers: above third quartile Yes, I’m still developing 223 87.5 I’m still developing, but more slowly than I used to 32 12.5 Development of human capital Adaptability Question 4: Do you have a planned path for your own development, career? Worst digital performers: below first quartile Yes, I have a clearly defined path 51 23.2 Yes, but the path is rather general 122 55.5 No, I do not currently have such a plan 47 21.4 Best digital performers: above third quartile Yes, I have a clearly defined path 132 51.8 Yes, but the path is rather general 104 40.8 No, I do not currently have such a plan 19 7.5 Emotional engagement Question 5: To what extent, in your own estimation, are you emotionally and personally involved in the project? Worst digital performers: below first quartile Best digital 1 1 0.5 2 3 1.4 3 23 10.5 (Continued) 52 The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic of project leaders has been grouped according to contextual factors related to the projects’ sustainability. The following conclusions can be drawn from these results: • About 45.9% of the best digital performers and 35.9% of the worst digital performers stated that their project activities were realised successfully in 75% or more during the COVID-19 pandemic. This indicates that Erasmus+ project leaders with higher digital competences turned out to be more effective in the management and sustainability of their projects. Consequently, the observed relationship here is that the higher the digital competences, the higher the effectiveness in project sustainability. • Best digital performers evaluate themselves better as project leaders. In the group of best digital performers, 44.7% of project leaders assessed themselves as very good, whereas in the worst digital performers group, it is only 13.6%. This suggests that the quality of project management is significantly affected by the level of digital competences. • According to 87.5% of the best digital performers and only 47.7% of the worst digital performers, they are still developing. This implies that there is a relationship between the level of digital competences and the quality of project management, as well as the development of human capital within a broader lifelong learning concept. Reference is made to the latest studies emphasising that future competences, including digital ones, can effectively develop within the lifelong learning process (Ehlers and Kellermann 2019; Ehlers 2020). This data also proves that the best digital performers adapt better in relation to the external conditions in which their projects function. This brings the discussion back to the issue Table 3.8 (Continued) Contextual factors of the project sustainability Quartile Answers N % performers: above third quartile 4 70 31.8 5 123 55.9 Worst digital performers: below first quartile 2 2 0.8 3 6 2.4 4 47 18.4 5 200 78.4 Source: Own work. The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic 53 of networking and relational character of modern organisations and the role of flexibility and adaptability that influence project sustainability previously described. • The relationship between the level of digital competences and the development of human capital can also be observed. According to 51.8% of the best digital performers and only 23.2% of the worst digital performers, they have a planned development path. • Emotional engagement also turned out to be a significant contextual factor contributing to Erasmus+ projects’ sustainability in the times of the COVID-19 pandemic, as 78.4% of the best digital performers and only 55.9% of the worst digital performers declared the highest level of their engagement. Since the contextual factor of learning potential that appeared here constitutes a separate realm, very characteristic for technology-bound networked organisations, it will be additionally analysed in detail further on in this book using other research techniques. 3.2.2.6 Predictive analysis in relationship to Erasmus+ project leaders’ digital and social competences In the next stage, predictive analysis in the form of logarithmic regression was carried out to determine if higher levels of Erasmus+ project leaders’ digital and social competences could possibly influence their projects’ sustainability. Accordingly, the underlying question referred to what relationships could be observed between a dependent binary variable, meaning a successful continuation of a project or its suspension, and independent variables, which in this case are Erasmus+ project leaders’ digital and social competences. In practical terms, it means checking by how many percentage points the chances of project continuation or suspension decrease or increase if the value of Erasmus+ project leaders’ digital or social competences increases by 1. The levels of Erasmus+ project leaders’ digital and social competences were established on the basis of model matrixes for these competences (Table 3.2 and 3.4) and data obtained from the questionnaire (Annex II). The obtained detailed values referring to competences’ dimensions were as follows (Table 3.9): The data shows that the respondents assessed their digital competences as relatively high, with an average score of 4.33 on the five-point Likerttype scale. It shows the natural fluency with which project coordinators already find themselves in the digital world and the online mode of work. The digital competence in this research had two dimensions: using computers in everyday work and working with online documents – both were assessed as relatively high by the majority of respondents. The social 54 The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic competence is more complex and sophisticated, including four different dimensions. The highest one was assessed at 3.96, as a dimension of maintaining contacts with others and cooperation. Furthermore, the dimension related to creating relationships and managing emotions (personal as well as team members’ emotions) by project leaders was assessed at the level of 3.94. The third dimension referred to communication skills and abilities was also highly rated: on an average level of 3.63. However, Erasmus+ project leaders scored very poorly in the dimension of adaptability and managing stress during the pandemic. This dimension of social competence was the weakest according to project leaders’ judgements, reaching a remarkably low level of 1.74. This shows how unusual and stressful the environment was due to the COVID-19 pandemic in which coordinators had to function in order to deliver results in their projects. Having obtained the values of Erasmus+ project leaders’ digital and social competences, the core part of a predictive analysis using logarithmic regression could be carried out. The digital and social competences of Erasmus+ project leaders, along with selected contextual factors, served as independent variables, and the suspension of a project was the dependent variable as explained above. At this point, the significance of Erasmus+ project leaders’ digital competence, social competence and some of the contextual factors as predictors was assessed. Two dimensions of digital competence were analysed: using a computer in everyday work and working with online documents, and the following four dimensions of social competence were considered: relations and emotions; adaptability Table 3.9 The Erasmus+ project leaders’ digital and social competence profile Competences Dimensions Average level of competences (scale 1–5) Digital The use of computers in everyday work 4.37 Work with online documents 4.18 Social Relations and emotions 3.94 Adaptability and managing stress during the pandemic 1.74 Maintaining contacts, cooperation 3.96 Communication 3.63 Source: Own work. The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic 55 and managing stress during the pandemic; maintaining contacts and cooperation; and communication. The subsequent dimensions of digital and social competences, as well as some of the contextual factors, can be treated as significant predictors in the logarithmic regression analysis only if the obtained value is lower than 0.05. This, in turn, allows the parameter Exp(B), the exponentiation of the coefficients that shows the odds ratios for a given predictor, to be calculated. The obtained results were as follows: As can be seen from Table 3.10, the obtained data can be translated into the value of (Exp(B)1)*100%, which shows by how many percent the chances Table 3.10 Significance of digital competence, social competence and contextual factors as predictors on the basis of logarithmic regression analysis and their Exp(B) value Predictors B Significance Exp(B) Social competence: relationships and emotions −0.069 0.758 0.933 Social competence: adaptability and managing stress during the pandemic −0.578 <0.001 0.561 Social competence: maintaining contacts and cooperation −0.036 0.731 0.965 Social competence: communication 0.038 0.829 1.038 Digital competence: using computers in everyday work −0.297 0.107 0.743 Digital competence: work with online documents 0.038 0.744 1.039 Only person managing the project 0.409 0.006 1.505 Professional time spent on project management 0.005 Professional time spent on project management: 20–75% −0.432 0.007 0.649 Professional time spent on project management: more than 75% −1.001 0.009 0.367 Length of service at the institution where the surveyed project was implemented: 10 years and more 0.462 0.005 1.587 Project budget: more than EUR 200,000 −1.422 <0.001 0.241 Constant 1.352 0.123 3.867 Source: Own work. 56 The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic of project suspension decrease or increase if the value of a given independent variable – in this case, the level of project leaders’ digital competence and social competence – increases by 1 on the Likert-type scale (see Table 3.9). For example, this data means that if the value of project leaders’ social competence in the dimension of adaptability and managing stress during the pandemic was 2.74 instead of 1.74 as assessed by the leaders themselves on the Likert-type scale from 1 to 5 (Table 3.9), then the chances of suspending their projects would decrease by 44%. This indicates that social competence in the dimension of adaptability and managing stress plays a significant role in effective management and sustainability of projects (Table 3.11). Table 3.11 The chances of project suspension/continuation in relationship to a significant predictor Predictor Decrease of a chance to suspend a project Increase of a chance to suspend a project Social competence: relationships and emotions 7% – Social competence: adaptability and managing stress during the pandemic 44% – Social competence: maintaining contacts and cooperation 3% – Social competence: communication – 4% (reverse tendency) Digital competence: using computers in everyday work 26% – Digital competence: working with online documents – 4% (reverse tendency) Only person managing the project 51% – Professional time spent on project management: 20–75% 35% – Professional time spent on project management: more than 75% 63% – – (Continued) The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic 57 Table 3.16 presents the obtained results in relation to Erasmus+ project leaders’ ability to learn within an organisation. The lifelong learning index values extend from 20 (min.) to 100 (max.) points (Table 3.15). The higher the value of the index, the higher the level of Erasmus+ project leaders’ learning potential. The obtained standard deviation value of 7.415 indicates that the distribution of results is relatively consistent. The first percentile of worst lifelong learning performers and the third percentile of best lifelong learning performers are similar in numbers, with 232 points for worst and 273 points for best (Table 3.16). These performers have lifelong learning index values of 78 and 88 points, respectively. The lack of strong discrimination in the obtained results is natural, considering that even within such a large sample of Erasmus+ project leaders, they form a highly homogenous group by their nature. This homogeneity results from the fact that they are selected leaders undertaking voluntary innovative projects in their organisations. They undergo thorough scrutiny before receiving European grants for their projects, ensuring their capability to run such projects. This also means that they must have certain features, qualities and competences highly developed, including the ability to learn and adapt in case something goes wrong with their projects. Nonetheless, some differences can still be observed, enabling further analysis directly connected to establishing the links between Erasmus+ project leaders’ learning potential and the sustainability of their projects during the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 3.17 shows that in the group of Erasmus+ project leaders with the lowest lifelong learning index value, 30.6% of projects were suspended or prolonged. In the group with the highest lifelong learning index, this value was only 20.1%. This means that Erasmus+ project leaders with high learning potential suspended or prolonged their projects more seldom during the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 3.16 Lifelong learning index: general statistics No. of respondents (N) 990 Mean 82.61 Minimum 61 Maximum 100 Percentile 25 78.00 (N = 232) 50 83.00 (N = 485) 75 88.00 (N = 273) Source: Own work. 64 The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic 3.3.2 Conclusions The data obtained in this part of the study proves that organisational learning potential within Erasmus+ projects, manifested by the activities and attitudes of their leaders, is an influential factor contributing to the sustainability of Erasmus+ projects during the COVID-19 pandemic. This finding supports the theoretical assumptions presented earlier that functioning within a relational and network mode of work, which is characteristic of Erasmus+ projects, fosters the organisational ability to learn. It also leads to the conclusion that the turbulent and unstable conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic motivate organisations and their leaders to learn in order to sustain their networks, which faced potential communication and cooperation breakdowns and disruptions due to the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic, as an unexpected event that created extreme conditions for business and educational activities, formed a specific testing ground for the already known and extensively researched concept of communities of practice with their learning potential. The data obtained proves that such communities, like Erasmus+ projects, achieved a competitive advantage and resilience. Many researchers claim that such a phenomenon is manifested by the need to learn and develop within networks, which consist of partners who are usually homogenous in terms of their beliefs, practices and attitudes (Brown and Duguid 1991; Rice and Aydin 1991; Lave and Wenger 1991; Rogers 1995; Orr 1996; Tyre and von Hippel 1997; Wenger 1998; Friedkin and Johnsen 1999). 3.4 Towards digital maturity of educational leaders The analyses presented in the previous section of this chapter show that educational leaders included in the research boast a relatively high level of digital maturity, as evidenced by their effectiveness in managing and Table 3.17 Projects’ status in relationship to Erasmus+ project leaders’ lifelong learning index Lifelong learning index (LLL index) Project status N % LLL index below first quartile – less than 78 points (N = 232) Project finished or ongoing 161 69.4 Project suspended or prolonged 71 30.6 LLL Index over third quartile – more than 88 points (N = 273) Project finished or ongoing 218 79.9 Project suspended or prolonged 55 20.1 Source: Own work. The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic 65 sustaining Erasmus+ projects. The data obtained not only confirms this from the perspective of the digital skills of these leaders but also from the perspective of their social and learning potential, which are integral domains of digital transformation. Yet, for the higher validity of the study, one more research activity in the form of a digital maturity index is proposed here. The methodology used here is the same as the one described in the previous section of this chapter in relation to lifelong learning index (Table 3.18). Table 3.18 Variables constituting the digital maturity index of Erasmus+ project leaders Questionnaire items or questions on Likert-type scale (1–5) Please rate how easy or difficult you find the following situations: own preparation for online work Please rate how easy or difficult you find the following situations: adapting the way project activities are implemented to the pandemic period Please rate how easy or difficult you find the following situations: team’s preparation for online work Please rate how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements: implementing a project during a pandemic requires special digital skills Please rate how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements: the pandemic period forced me to start using new tools/software Please rate how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements: educational activities can be conducted remotely without any loss in quality Please indicate to what extent the following statements describe you: I can apply innovative solutions in my work I believe I can: coordinate the work of a dispersed team (e.g. working remotely) Please rate how easy or difficult you find the following tasks: using e-banking services Please rate how easy or difficult you find the following tasks: filing your tax return online Please rate how easy or difficult you find the following tasks: filing an official application via the ePUAP system Please rate how easy or difficult you find the following tasks: making use of an electronic document workflow Please rate how easy or difficult you find the following tasks: organising my own online work (Continued) 66 The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic The above compilation of 28 questions of the questionnaire constitutes the digital maturity index of project leaders. In order to make this index easier to interpret, some quantitative transformations have been made to arrive at the index values ranging from 0 to 100. The higher the value of the index, the higher the level of digital maturity and digital literacy among targeted Erasmus+ project leaders, which can be seen in Table 3.19 and Figure 3.1. For further analysis, two groups of Erasmus+ project leaders were distinguished: worst digital performers (digital maturity index, lowest quartile) and best digital performers (digital maturity index, upper quartile). Table 3.18 (Continued) Questionnaire items or questions on Likert-type scale (1–5) Please rate how easy or difficult you find the following tasks: starting a video conference with several people at the same time Please rate how easy or difficult you find the following tasks: protecting my PC from network viruses Please rate how easy or difficult you find the following tasks: sharing the screen with others during a video conference Please rate how up-to-date you are with modern ICT solutions that can be used in your work? I believe I have no problems using: web resources I believe I have no problems using: text editors (e.g. Microsoft Word) I believe I have no problems using: spreadsheets (e.g. Microsoft Excel) I believe I have no problems using: instant messengers I believe I have no problems using: e-mail I believe I have no problems using: online collaboration tools I believe I have no problems using: video conferencing tools I believe I have no problems using: project management tools Please rate your overall level of proficiency in using modern technology How often do you participate in training courses to improve competences used at work? Questionnaire item or questions on binary scale Have you participated in any training courses (class-based or online) on the use of modern technology in the last six months? Source: Own work. The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic 67 Next, a comparison was made on how these two groups performed during the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to the sustainability of their projects. The results’ distribution, with a standard deviation value of 9.69, indicates that both groups of best and worst digital maturity index performers (first and third quartiles) are similar in numbers: worst performers (N = 280) and best performers (N = 240). The average score in the digital maturity index for worst performers is 64.15 points out of 100 points, and for best performers, it is 87.85 points. Table 3.20 shows that in the group of respondents with the lowest digital maturity index value, 29.3% of projects were suspended or prolonged. In Table 3.19 General statistics on digital maturity index N 990 Mean 76.15 Min. 36.61 Max. 98.21 Percentile 25 70.54 50 76.79 75 83.04 Source: Own work. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 37 45 46 48 51 53 54 56 58 60 62 63 65 67 69 71 72 74 76 78 79 81 83 85 87 88 90 92 94 96 98 Digital maturity index value Number of respondents Figure 3.1 Digital maturity index of Erasmus+ project leaders (scale: 0–100). Source: Own work. 68 The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic the group of respondents with the highest digital maturity index score, only 20% of projects were suspended or prolonged. This means that Erasmus+ project leaders who show a higher level of digital maturity less frequently suspended or prolonged their projects during the COVID-19 pandemic. To sum up the research results from this first part of the whole study, it must be stated that the data obtained and the analyses carried out on the basis of different methodologies and from different angles prove that Erasmus+ project leaders’ digital maturity is relatively high. This digital maturity is manifested through their effectiveness in sustaining and managing project activities during the times of the pandemic. References Achrol, R. S. (1997). Changes in the theory of inter-organizational relations: Toward a network paradigm. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1997(25), 56–71. Anand, B. N., & Khanna, T. (2000). Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 295–315. Baker, W. E., & Faulkner, R. F. (2002). Interorganizational networks. In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations. Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Barata, J., Da Cunha, P. R., & Stal, J. (2018). Mobile supply chain management in the Industry 4.0 Era. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 2018(31), 173–192. Bawany, S. (2017). The future of leadership in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Leadership. Excellence. Essentials, 2017, 12. Beliczyński, J. (2018). Organizacja w otoczeniu rynkowym jako obiekt zarządzania. In A. Stabryła (Ed.), Podstawy organizacji i zarządzania. Podejścia i koncepcje badawcze (p. 31). Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie. Birkinshaw, J., & Hagstrom, P. (Eds.) (2000). The flexible firm: Capability management in network organizations. Oxford University Press. Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology, Pergamon. Journal of Management 2003, 29(6), 991–1013. Table 3.20 Project status in relation to digital maturity index of Erasmus+ project leaders Digital maturity index Project status N % Index below first quartile (N = 280) Finished/ongoing 198 70.7 Suspended/prolonged 82 29.3 Index over third quartile (N = 240) Finished/ongoing 192 80 Suspended/prolonged 48 20 Source: Own work. (correlation statistically significant, p-value = 0.018) The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic 69 Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-ofpractice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57. Czakon, W. (2011). Paradygmat sieciowy w naukach o zarza dzaniu. Przegla d Organizacji, 11. Czakon, W.. (2012). Sieci w zarządzaniu strategicznym (pp. 42–43). Wolters Kluwer. Dobrowolska, M., & Knop, L. (2020). Fit to work in the business models of the Industry 4.0 age. Sustainability, 12(12), 4854. 10.3390/su12124854. Ehlers, U.-D., & Kellermann, S. A. (2019). Future skills – the future of learning and higher education. Results of the International Future Skills Delphi Survey. NextSkills. Ehlers, U.-D. (2020). Future skills – the future of learning and higher education. NextSkills. Ellis, A., & Van Der Merwe, A. F. (2019). Human expertise in additive manufacturing digitalization. In The future of manufacturing layer by layer, establishing the 3D process chain, Proceedings of the 20th Annual International RAPSADA Conference, Emoya Estate, Bloemfontein, South Africa, 6–8 November 2019; RAPSADA: Bloemfontein, South Africa, 2019, pp. 163–170. Erol, S., Jager, A., Hold, P., Ott, K., & Sihn, W. (2018). Tangible Industry 4.0: A scenario-based approach to learning for the future of production. Procedia CIRP, 2018 (54), 13–18. Friedkin, N. E., & Johnsen, E. C. (1999). Social influence networks and opinion change. Advances in Group Processes, 16, 1–29. Hecklau, F., Galeitzke, M., Flachs, S., & Kohl, H. (2016). Holistic approach for human resource management in Industry 4.0. Procedia CIRP, 2016(54), 1–6. Ilinitch, A. Y., D′Aveni, R. A., & Lewin, A. Y. (1996). New organizational forms and strategies for managing in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science, 7(3), 211–221. 10.1287/orsc.7.3.211. Imran, F., & Kantola, J. (2018). Review of Industry 4.0 in the light of sociotechnical system theory and competence-based view: A future research agenda for the evolute approach. Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Orlando, FL, USA, 21–25 July 2018. Springer: Cham. Jarillo, J. C. (1988). On strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 31–39. Kale, P., Singh, H., & Perlmutter, H. (2000). Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 217–237. Karabiegovic, I. (2018). The role of industrial and service robots in the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Industry 4.0. Acta Technica Corviniensis – Bulletin of Engineering, 2018(11), 11–16. Kast, F. E., & Rosenzweig, J. E. (1970). Organization and management: A systems approach. McGraw Hill. Kogut, B. (2000). The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 405–425. Kraatz, M. S. (1998). Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 621–643. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Makieła, Z., Stuss, M., & Szczepańska-Woszczyna, K. (2019). Exploring the role of innovation in academic entrepreneurship. In K. S. Soliman (Ed.), Proceedings of 70 The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic the 34th International Business Information Management Association Conference (IBIMA), 13–14 November 2019, Madrid, Spain: Vision 2025: education excellence and management of innovations through sustainable economic competitive advantage. [s.l.]: International Business Information Management Association (IBIMA) (Proceedings of the International Business Information Management Association Conference, eISSN 2767-9640), pp. 9195–9206. Retrieved from: https://sin.put. poznan.pl/publications/details/i25002 (accessed on 19 February 2020). Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1992). Causes of failure in network organizations. California Management Review, 34, 52–72. Oliver, A. L. (2001). Strategic alliances and the learning life-cycle of biotechnology firms. Organization Studies, 22(3), 467–489. 10.1177/0170840601223004. Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development. (2004). The OECD-JRC handbook on practices for developing composite indicators. OECD Publishing. Orr, J. (1996). Talking about machines: An etnography of a modern job. Cornell University Press. Packendorff, J. (1995). Inquiring into the temporary organization: New directions for project management research. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 319–333. Palmer, J., & Richards, I. (1999). Get Knitted: Network behaviour in the new economy. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3, 191–202. Pinzone, M., Fantini, P., Perini, S., Garavaglia, S., Taisch, M., & Miragliotta, G. (2017). Jobs and skills in Industry 4.0: An exploratory research. IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems, 2017 (pp. 282–288). Springer: Cham. Podolny, J. M., & Page, K. L. (1998). Network forms of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 57–76. Poszytek, P. (2021b). The 4.0 competences as facilitators in the realisation, management and sustainability of Erasmus+ projects in the times of COVID-19 pandemic. Poltext. 10.7206/9788381753166. Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145. 10.2307/2393988. Rice, R. E., & Gattiker, U. (2000). New media and organizational structuring. In F. Jablin, and L. Putnam (Eds.), New handbook of organizational communication (pp. 544–581). Sage. Rice, R. E., & Aydin, C. (1991). Attitudes toward new organizational technology: Network proximity as a mechanism for social information processing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 219–244 Rindfleisch, A., & Moorman, C. (2001). The acquisition and utilization of information in new product alliances: A strength-of-ties perspective. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 1–18. 10.1509/jmkg.65.2.1.18253. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press. Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disc industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–306. 10.1002/SMJ.160. Stabryła, A., Tyrańska, M., & Walas-Trębacz, J. (2018). Struktury organizacyjne. In A. Stabryła (Ed.), Podstawy organizacji i zarządzania. Podejścia i koncepcje badawcze (pp. 62–65). Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie. The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic 71 Stańczyk-Hugiet, E. (2012). Paradygmat relacyjny – czy to nowa jakość w zarządzaniu? In Studia i Prace Kolegium Zarządzania i Finansów, Zeszyt Naukowy 116. Szkoła Główna Handlowa. Stead, J. G., & Stead, W. E. (2008). Sustainable strategic management: An evolutionary perspective. International Journal of Sustainable Strategic Management, 1, 62–81. Sułkowski, Ł. (2015). Hermeneutyka procesów organizacji i zarządzania – analiza metaparadygmatyczna. In M. Chmielecki (Ed.), Studia z zarządzania międzykulturowego. Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie, XVI (3), 240. Wydawnictwo Społecznej Akademii Nauk. Thorelli, H. B. (1986). Networks: Between markets and hierarchies. Strategic Management Journal, 7. Tyre, M. J., & von Hippel, E. (1997). The situated nature of adaptive learning in organization. Organization Science, 8(1), 71–84. Van Alstyne, M. (1997). The state of network organization: A survey in three frameworks. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 7, 83–151. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. Wieland, A., & Wallenburg, C. M. (2012). The influence of relational competencies on supply chain resilience: A relational view. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 43(4), 2013, 300–320. Włoch, R., & Śledziewska, K. (2019). Kompetencje przyszłości. Jak je kształtować w elastycznym ekosystemie edukacyjnym? DeLab. Woźniak-Sobczak, B. (2015). Symbioza paradygmatów zarządzania przedsiębiorstwem w otoczeniu sieciowym. Studia Ekonomiczne. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach, 222, 53–69. Zabolotniaia, M., Cheng, Z., & Dacko-Pikiewicz, Z. (2019). Influence of leadership style on employees’ innovative activity. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 20(1), 478–496. 72 The resilience of educational leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic 4 Universities participating in European Universities Initiative as digital hubs 4.1 European Universities and their networking and relational character The European Universities Initiative aims to contribute to one of the European Commission’s key ideas: creating a common European Higher Education Area. As previously explained, European Universities are consortia of several higher education institutions that operate based on collectively established rules and procedures in areas such as teaching, administration and research. This collaboration should ultimately result in the establishment of a single legal entity: a European university. What we are dealing with here is a form of university merger at the European level. Sułkowski outlines the aims of universities as follows: (1) strengthening research positioning, (2) greater visibility nationwide and worldwide, (3) pursuing excellence in didactics and (4) strengthening internationalisation (Sułkowski 2017). On the practical level, a European university could offer a unified European degree or joint degree during the intermediate phase of network development. According to American researchers, Europe is a global leader in implementing such solutions, evident through the introduction and continued operation of previous European initiatives like the Erasmus Mundus Programme and Joint Master Degree Framework (Hoseth and Thampapillai 2020). For students and academics, this should provide one platform for developing an educational path and carrying out research on a broader scale. For universities themselves, the aim is to enable and foster the creation of centres of excellence in both didactic and research areas. All of this is achieved through enhanced mobility, access to resources and the use of technology, including the establishment of virtual campuses to implement the concept of blended learning – a hybrid of traditional and online methods. As previously explained, the entire idea is actually built upon existing business models that have proven highly effective. Specifically, it’s the notion that a competitive advantage can be achieved by establishing a network of DOI: 10.4324/9781003482246-5 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. The process of digital transformation within researched European universities is realised through the following activities: (a) implementation of electronic circulation of documents and information systems, digitalisation of university resources, including libraries; and (b) use of digital tools for educational purposes (MS Teams and Zoom) and digital project management tools (Moodle). Some universities are still in the process of digitally transforming their student-related systems, while one university reported having developed its own tools and systems and infrequently relies on external support in this regard. Notably, technical universities exhibited a greater inclination to create their own customised IT solutions and systems due to evident reasons. Findings from the in-depth interviews revealed the following statements regarding this matter: We have fully implemented the electronic circulation of documents. All documents are accepted electronically. We also have an e-students’ track record book – all grades are online. [dean for foreign relations, university] Some of our administrative tools are not yet fully digitalised – especially with regards to human resources. We still encounter difficulties with GDPR in this respect. [dean for digitalisation, university] Our administrative and academic staff represent different level of digital tools advancement. Administrative workers use our digital documentation system, while academic staff is more familiar with tools for remote work – MS teams, Zoom, virtual classrooms etc. [head of digitalisation centre, technical university] We have developed our own student-relations system. It is very convenient because it is adjusted exactly to our needs and not the other way round. However, to be compliant with our external partners, we are thinking of buying another system. We were also one of the first ones in Poland to give up paper course records. [dean for education, technical university] It is important to highlight that in half of the surveyed cases, the course of digital transformation is determined by the highest governing bodies of the university. One out of three universities implements a pre-arranged digital transformation strategy that is enforced and approved centrally. The digital transformation process and its trajectory are integrated into the overarching developmental strategy of the university (Table 4.2). Individual interviews with university representatives provide further insight into how this process unfolds in practice. In reality, it frequently involves a fusion of a bottom-up approach (geared towards addressing the requirements of university staff and students) with a top-down strategy established by the highest authorities of a given higher education institution, as elucidated during the in-depth interviews: 80 Universities participating in European Universities Initiative Digital transformation is a multi-track process: some of its aspects might be initiated and executed by the rector’s college, however, some others, come from employees themselves. Some solutions are a result of international cooperation with other institutions. As you can see, it is a multi-layered and multi-track process. [head of digitalisation centre, technical university] Most of the processes are conceived to answer the needs of middle management staff of the university. Our digitalisation council is in charge of preparing solutions to make their work easier. [dean for digitalisation, university] The results of the research (Tables 4.3 and 4.4) showed that the principal challenges in the digital transformation process include (a) lack of financial resources necessary to carry out systemic changes within the university; (b) lack of support from the state/public administration; and (c) inability to adjust university’s adopted management model to the ongoing technological changes. What is important here is that the lack of financial resources turned out to be a systemic problem. The higher education sector has been deemed underfinanced, with even the most renowned European universities grappling with financial limitations. Nevertheless, some of the universities are at risk of falling behind their European University partners from abroad unless they allocate more resources to digital transformation processes. “Research universities” appear to be in a better financial condition, yet they still recognise the need for systemic changes. This challenge is also related to the lack of support from the state. In most cases, universities cannot afford to hire digital transformation specialists, as their budgets are simply not competitive enough to hire top experts. This has been expressed quite often, as follows: Table 4.2 How would you describe the ongoing digital transformation process at your university? Answer Frequency The direction of our university’s digital transformation is set on a top-down basis, e.g. by the Rectors Committee. 9 The digital transformation of our university takes a continuous, bottom-up approach through the implementation of good practices at the unit and employee levels. 3 Our university is consistently implementing a pre-planned digital transformation strategy, enacted and adopted centrally. 6 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 18. Universities participating in European Universities Initiative 81 We simply cannot afford to hire the best IT and digitalisation specialists. [dean for foreign relations, university] Our IT specialists and developers often quit for financial reasons – they can make much better money working for a private company. [dean for education, technical university] Academic and administrative staff is not always willing to learn or to change something in their everyday working routine. It depends on the age, of course, and on a general openness. [dean for digitalisation, university] We need to jump on this high-speed train of digital transformation if we don’t want to stay behind our European partners. [dean for education, technical university] Other significant challenges include resistance of the university staff, primarily of an academic nature as opposed to managerial, along with a deficit of competences within the managerial cadre to proficiently Table 4.3 What do you think is the biggest challenge in your university’s digital transformation process? Answer Frequency Lack of financial resources needed to carry out systemic changes at the university 12 Lack of support from the state/public administration 8 Failure to adjust the university’ s adopted management model to the ongoing technological changes 7 Resistance/passivity on the academic part of staff 6 Lack of experience in the digital transformation process of the university 5 Lack of competences among managerial staff needed to carry out systemic changes at the university 5 Lack of knowledge/reliable sources of information on the digital transformation of the university 4 Lack of need for organisational changes at the university 4 Lack of well-conceived strategy for the university’s digital transformation 3 Lack of faith in the success of the university’s digital transformation 2 Resistance/passivity on the managerial part of staff 1 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 18. 82 Universities participating in European Universities Initiative implement and execute digital transformation endeavours. This challenge can be addressed by training managerial staff, which is perceived as timeconsuming and not always prioritised: We need to focus more on training our staff. We do not have a training unit that would be responsible for assessing training needs, designing and carrying out trainings. Such unit, in my opinion, is very much needed at our university. [head of digitalisation centre, technical university] 4.2.3.2 Management model of the university Two-thirds of the surveyed universities are progressively aligning their organisational processes towards intelligent management, based on Education 4.0 solutions and new digital technologies. However, this model is predominantly perceived as traditional, as it is based on the direct supervision of employees by superiors (Table 4.5). This traditional management style is understood as being very direct and top-down. It uses several digital tools to facilitate the processes. In some cases, these tools were introduced as a necessity during the pandemic and continue to be used regularly, despite the end of the pandemic. The electronic documentation system increased our effectiveness and it made it easier to identify management-related problems. Moreover, during Table 4.4 Primary challenges in the digital transformation process Answer Frequency Lack of financial resources 12 Lack of support from the state 8 Failure to adjust the management model 7 Resistance/passivity (academic staff) 6 Lack of competences (managerial staff) 5 Lack of experience 5 Lack of knowledge/sources of information 4 Lack of need for organisational changes 4 Lack of strategy for the transformation 3 Lack of faith in the process 2 Resistance/passivity (managerial staff) 1 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 18. Universities participating in European Universities Initiative 83 the pandemic, we had to find a solution how to gather the key employees and how to vote. We implemented an online system for that and it has been used since then on a daily basis. No one wants to vote in person anymore, it is much more convenient to do it online. [head of digitalisation centre, technical university] The process of staff management and task delegation is predominantly conducted through direct personal interactions, with limited reliance on digital tools (Table 4.6). It should be noted that all the surveyed universities use digital tools within these processes, and none of the institutions solely follows a fully personal, non-digital approach in managing and planning team/employee/project work. Simultaneously, none of the universities reported using solely digitised tools for staff management. Generally, the surveyed higher education institutions demonstrate a willingness to engage in partnerships with both foreign universities and universities from their own country. Only two institutions admitted that they enter into partnerships mostly with universities from their own country rather than with foreign ones (Table 4.7). 4.2.3.3 Infrastructure One-third of universities that took part in the survey declared to use advanced technological solutions to optimise teaching, research and administrative tasks. Most of the institutions still use basic software and Table 4.5 How would you describe the management model adopted at your university? Answer Frequency Our university follows a traditional organisational model based on personal team management and ongoing task delegation. Currently, we do not use any systems to monitor staff activity or optimise the use of resources. 3 Our university is gradually streamlining organisational processes towards intelligent management based on the use of new digital technologies and Education 4.0 solutions. So far, management at our university is still largely traditional, through direct supervision of employees by superiors. 12 In many areas, our university has already introduced automated and flexible organisational processes that minimise the need for direct supervision of employees by superiors (e.g. systems for monitoring work activity, systems for remote management of assigned tasks). We are currently conducting further process changes and improvements. 3 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 18. 84 Universities participating in European Universities Initiative tools, although there is a growing trend towards the implementation of more intricate and intelligent systems. These advanced systems facilitate the alignment of teaching and academic research methods with the demands of the evolving educational landscape. None of the institutions classified their solutions as basic (Table 4.8). In most of the surveyed cases, intelligent systems for data processing and analysis have been partially implemented in order to improve teaching, research and administrative processes. However, these implementations Table 4.6 How is the process of managing staff and delegating tasks/reviewing the performance of tasks assigned to staff carried out at your university? Answer Frequency The management of the work of staff is carried out in a purely direct, personal way, without the use of digital tools dedicated to managing and planning the work of teams/employees/projects. 0 The management of the work of university staff is largely done in a direct, personal way, with little support from a variety of digital tools (various software and applications for managing and planning the work of teams/employees/projects). 13 The management of the work at our university is largely done through the use of digital tools (dedicated software and applications for managing and planning the work of teams/ employees/projects). 5 Only digitised tools for managing staff work are used at the university (including dedicated software and applications for managing and planning the work of teams/employees/ projects), we avoid any form of micromanagement. 0 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 18. Table 4.7 How would you define the level of networking of your university regionally and globally? Answer Frequency Our university operates to a large extent on its own, without close cooperation with other similar institutions. 0 Our university enters into partnerships primarily with other Polish universities. 2 Our university enters into partnerships primarily with foreign universities. 3 We are open to partnerships with both Polish and foreign universities. 13 Source: own work based on survey results. N = 18. Universities participating in European Universities Initiative 85 remain fragmented, addressing only specific aspects of the operations. In only one instance, various operational domains are integrated into comprehensive analysis systems, conducted in real time. This integration facilitates swifter responses and effective strategic decision-making, even in unforeseen circumstances (Table 4.9). Table 4.8 How would you rate the overall level of technological advancement of your university? Answer Frequency Our university uses basic technological solutions and underlying software to maintain the continuity of teaching, research and administrative processes in the era of ongoing technological change. 0 Our university is still using basic software and tools, although advanced, intelligent systems are increasingly being introduced, allowing us to adapt the way we conduct teaching and academic research to the requirements of the evolving educational reality. 12 Our university uses advanced technological solutions to optimise and streamline the way teaching, academic research and administrative services are carried out in times of digital revolution. 6 Source: own work based on survey results. N = 18. Table 4.9 Which of the following statements best describes the data collection and analysis policy adopted at your university? Answer Frequency Data collected at our university in the different areas of its operation (teaching, research and administration) is processed and analysed selectively for the needs of individual offices and administrative divisions. We do not use an integrated data analysis system. 5 Intelligent systems for data processing and analysis have already been partially implemented at our university in order to improve the teaching, research and administrative processes, but these are still piecemeal solutions that do not cover the entirety of the processes carried out. 12 Data collected in different areas of our university’s operations is integrated into comprehensive analysis systems (conducted in real time), which allows for faster reactions and efficient strategic decision-making even in unforeseen circumstances. 1 Source: own work based on survey results. N = 18. 86 Universities participating in European Universities Initiative 4.2.3.4 Human capital In over half of the cases, only basic training programmes for academic and administrative staff are provided. Merely seven institutions have stated their provision of comprehensive training programmes for academic staff, intended to cultivate knowledge, competences and skills necessary to adapt to the evolving conditions of the education system. As for administrative staff, such diverse and complex trainings were offered only in three cases (Table 4.10). Regarding the competency level of administrative staff, their proficiency in transitioning between traditional, remote and hybrid work environments was regarded as the highest. Administrative personnel also exhibited strong skills in remote work using digital tools, along with adeptness in employing digital software and tools. However, proficiency in working with systems based on artificial intelligence was rated relatively low (Table 4.11). AI tools are far from being perfect and most of the staff are not familiar with them. On the other hand, people are afraid of what they don’t know, and they really don’t know much yet about artificial intelligence tools. [dean for education, technical university] The distribution of results is practically the same for both administrative and academic staff. Among the latter group, the highest performance was Table 4.10 How does your university prepare staff for the ongoing digital transformation and the technological changes that come with it? Answer Academic staff Administrative staff We do not provide systematic training programmes for academic staff at our university; we leave the acquisition of new skills and competences (including digital) to their own discretion. 0 1 Basic training programmes for academic staff are provided at our university, primarily focused on preserving the standard and quality of conducted research projects. 11 14 Comprehensive programmes of various training courses for academic staff – both mandatory and optional – are conducted at our university, aimed at developing their knowledge, competences and skills in the changing conditions of the educational ecosystem. 7 3 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 18. Universities participating in European Universities Initiative 87 observed in remote learning and team collaboration using digital tools. The ability to use digital software and tools was also rated equally high. However, the ability to work with systems based on artificial intelligence is low among this group (Table 4.12). Regarding the training requirements of the staff, respondents highlighted that managerial personnel would derive the greatest advantage from training in data collection and analysis, as well as the management of dispersed teams. Conversely, academic staff would benefit from training in collaborating within dispersed teams and enhancing their digital competences. For administrative staff, the need for training in data collection and analysis was identified, along with workshops focused on internal communication (Table 4.13). All interviewees emphasised the paramount importance of staff training in the digital transformation process of their institutions. The training process is two-fold: on the one hand, employees are trained in external digital tools, such as MS Teams, Zoom and Moodle. On the other hand, the training concerns internal digital solutions prepared within the university: the digital documentation system, e-students’ book, digital invoice systems, etc. The interviewees also stressed the role of the COVID-19 pandemic in accelerating both the digital transformation and training processes: Table 4.11 How would you rate the level of competence of the administrative staff? Answer High level Medium level Low level Switching between traditional, remote, hybrid work 9 9 – Remote teamworking using digital tools 8 8 2 Remote learning using digital tool 7 7 2 Managing remotely working team 5 5 8 Ability to use digital software and tools 5 10 2 Willingness and openness to work with AI solutions 4 4 8 Solving complex problems using digital tools 3 7 6 Working, interacting with systems based on AI 1 1 12 Source: Poszytek and Budzanowska 2023. 88 Universities participating in European Universities Initiative Since 2019 we have made a huge step forward. Our staff had no other choice during the pandemic but to train themselves in using digital tools. Transformation is always a process, but as it turned out, it was not so hard. It is not cheap either. Let’s be honest – digital transformation is a costly Table 4.12 How would you rate the level of competence of the academic staff? Answer High level Medium level Low level Remote learning using digital tools 10 8 – Remote teamworking using digital tools 10 7 1 Switching between traditional, remote, hybrid work 8 8 2 Managing remotely working team 6 6 5 Solving complex problems using digital tools 4 10 2 Ability to use digital software and tools 4 13 1 Willingness and openness to work with AI solutions 2 9 4 Working, interacting with systems based on AI 1 3 9 Source: Poszytek and Budzanowska 2023. Table 4.13 Which training courses would you find attractive to support your university’s digital transformation process? Answer Administrative staff Academic staff Managerial staff Data collection and analysis 16 12 14 Internal communication 15 10 9 Management/working in dispersed teams 15 17 13 Advanced digital competences 12 13 12 Working with specific digital tools 8 6 2 Business strategy management/ planning – – 11 Source: Poszytek and Budzanowska 2023. Universities participating in European Universities Initiative 89 The respondents were represented by: • Seven professors • Two lecturers • One assistant • One research fellow As in the case of European Universities, the questions referred to five main areas, namely, digital transformation strategy of the university, management model of the university, its infrastructure, human capital in the university and product meant as the university’s offer for students. Additionally, two in-depth individual interviews were conducted with the representatives of Stanford University and UC Berkeley, which are treated here as special points of reference on the one hand because of their proximity to Silicon Valley and also as a driving force behind technological innovations defining Silicon Valley on the other hand. The online survey results are presented in the following paragraphs. 4.3.1 Digital transformation strategy Out of 11 surveyed universities, eight claimed that their digital transformation is already at an advanced stage, which shows a high level of self-evaluation in this area (Table 4.18). Of the remaining institutions, three stated that they have already introduced modern digital solutions in some areas, but are still in the early stages of the transformation towards Education 4.0. What is significant, none of the respondents admitted that his or her university has not yet embarked on a holistic digital transformation (Table 4.18). The strategy of the process of implementation of digital transformation was seen differently by different institutions. The group of respondents has split here almost equally among three possible answers (Table 4.19). Table 4.18 How would you describe the level of digital transformation at your university? Answer Frequency Our university has not yet embarked on a holistic digital transformation. 0 Our university has already introduced modern digital solutions in some areas, but we are still in the early stages of the transformation towards Education 4.0. 3 Our university’s digital transformation is already at an advanced stage. 8 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 11. 96 Universities participating in European Universities Initiative The biggest challenge while introducing digital transformation at the university at this point (Table 4.20) was the lack of competences among managerial staff needed to carry out systemic changes at the university. Furthermore, equally important were (1) lack of financial resources needed to carry out systemic changes at the university, (2) resistance on the part of staff and (3) lack of a well-thought-out strategy for the university’s digital transformation. Table 4.19 How would you describe the ongoing digital transformation process at your university? Answer Frequency The direction of our university’s digital transformation is set continuously by the Rectors Committee. 3 The digital transformation of our university takes a continuous, bottom-up approach through the implementation of good practices at the unit and employee levels. 4 Our university is consistently implementing a pre-planned digital transformation strategy, enacted and adopted centrally (in the form of a government regulation, resolution or other document). In order to properly implement the change, an appropriate body (team, working group) has been established to oversee the process. 4 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 11. Table 4.20 What do you think is the biggest challenge in digital transformation process at your university? Answer Frequency Lack of competences among managerial staff needed to carry out systemic changes at the university 4 Lack of financial resources needed to carry out systemic changes at the university 3 Resistance/passivity on the part of staff 3 Lack of a well thought-out strategy for the university’s digital transformation 3 Lack of experience in the digital transformation process of the university 2 I do not see any challenges in the digital transformation process of our university 2 (Continued) Universities participating in European Universities Initiative 97 None of the respondents reported at this point: (1) lack of support from the state administration, (2) lack of faith in the success of the university’ s digital transformation and (3) lack of need for organisational changes at the university. Other responses on key challenges included (respondents’ quotes): Access to higher education in the US is limited by wealth and upbringing. Professors are evaluated primarily on indirect cost return from research grants. Students abusing the trust. The staff actually implementing digital transformation processes, once those have been put into place, is excellent. The top-level university officials in charge of putting these processes into place seem, from the results, very unevenly competent. Everything has major glitches! The biggest challenge at my university is the security of the system. 4.3.2 Management model of the university While asking about the management model adopted at the university, two models seemed to be equally and most popular: the model based on personal team management and ongoing task delegation as well as the model based on automated and flexible organisational processes that minimise the need for direct supervision of employees by superiors. This shows that almost half of the surveyed universities are following the traditional model, while the second, equal part, is introducing modern and digital aspect to management tasks (Tables 4.21 and 4.22). In more than half of the cases (6 out of 11), the management of the work at our university is largely done through the use of digital tools (dedicated Table 4.20 (Continued) Answer Frequency Lack of knowledge/reliable sources of information on the digital transformation of the university 1 Resistance/passivity on the part of managerial staff 1 Failure to adjust the university’s adopted management model to the ongoing technological changes 1 Lack of support from the state/public administration 0 Lack of faith in the success of the university’s digital transformation 0 Lack of need for organisational changes at the university 0 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 11. 98 Universities participating in European Universities Initiative Table 4.21 How would you describe the management model adopted at your university? Answer Frequency Our university follows a traditional organisational model based on personal team management and ongoing task delegation. At this point in time, we do not use any systems to monitor staff activity or optimise the use of resources. 5 Our university is gradually streamlining organisational processes towards intelligent management based on the use of new digital technologies and Education 4.0 solutions. So far, management at our university is still largely traditional, through direct supervision of employees by superiors. 1 In many areas, our university has already introduced automated and flexible organisational processes that minimise the need for direct supervision of employees by superiors (e.g. systems for monitoring work activity, systems for remote management of assigned tasks). We are currently conducting further process changes and improvements. 5 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 11. Table 4.22 How is the process of managing staff and delegating tasks/reviewing the performance of tasks assigned to staff carried out at your university? Answer Frequency The management of the work of staff is carried out in a purely direct, personal way, without the use of digital tools dedicated to managing and planning the work of teams/employees/ projects. 1 The management of the work of university staff is largely done in a direct, personal way, with little support from a variety of digital tools (various software and applications for managing and planning the work of teams/employees/projects). 2 The management of the work at our university is largely done through the use of digital tools (dedicated software and applications for managing and planning the work of teams/ employees/projects). 6 Only digitised tools for managing staff work are used at the university (including dedicated software and applications for managing and planning the work of teams/employees/ projects), we avoid any form of micromanagement. 2 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 11. Universities participating in European Universities Initiative 99 software and applications for managing and planning the work of teams/ employees/projects). Only in one surveyed university is the traditional path, namely, based on the direct, personal way, without the use of digital tools dedicated to managing and planning the work, followed (Table 4.22). Almost all surveyed universities claimed that they are open to partnerships with both American and foreign universities. Only one admitted that it quite rarely cooperates with other universities (Table 4.23). 4.3.3 Infrastructure The overall level of technological advancement of the surveyed universities was seen differently by different universities, as almost equal distribution of answers can be observed. All answers were evenly represented in this case (Tables 4.24). More than half of the surveyed universities claimed that intelligent systems for data processing and analysis have already been partially implemented at university in order to improve the teaching, research and administrative processes, but these are still piecemeal solutions that do not cover the entirety of the processes carried out. This shows that most of the universities are in the halfway while talking about data collection and analysis policy (Table 4.25). All respondents claimed that their institutions provide some trainings for teaching staff about the ongoing digital transformation and technological changes. Slightly more respondents claimed that their university prepares comprehensive programmes of various training courses for teaching staff, which are both mandatory and optional (Table 4.26). Very similar answers were obtained while asking for administrative staff (Table 4.27). All respondents claimed that their institutions provide Table 4.23 How would you define the level of networking of your university regionally and globally? Answer Frequency Our university quite rarely cooperates with other universities. 1 Our university enters into partnerships primarily with other American universities. 0 Our university enters into partnerships primarily with foreign universities. 0 As a university, we are open to partnerships with both American and foreign universities. 10 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 11. 100 Universities participating in European Universities Initiative some trainings for administrative staff about the ongoing digital transformation and technological changes. Slightly more respondents claimed that their university prepares basic programmes for various training courses and that the acquisition of new skills and competences, Table 4.25 Which of the following statements best describes the data collection and analysis policy adopted at your university? Answer Frequency Data collected at our university in the different areas of its operation (teaching, research and administration) is processed and analysed selectively for the needs of individual offices and administrative divisions. We do not use an integrated data analysis system. 2 Intelligent systems for data processing and analysis have already been partially implemented at our university in order to improve the teaching, research and administrative processes, but these are still piecemeal solutions that do not cover the entirety of the processes carried out. 6 Data collected in different areas of our university’s operations is integrated into comprehensive analysis systems (conducted in real time), which allows for faster reactions and efficient strategic decision-making even in unforeseen circumstances. 3 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 11. Table 4.24 How would you rate the overall level of technological advancement of your university? Answer Frequency Our university uses basic technological solutions and underlying software to maintain the continuity of teaching, research and administrative processes in the era of ongoing technological changes. 3 Our university is still using basic software and tools, although advanced, intelligent systems are increasingly being introduced, allowing us to adapt the way we conduct teaching and academic research to the requirements of the evolving educational reality. 4 Our university uses advanced technological solutions to optimise and streamline the way teaching, academic research and administrative services are carried out in times of digital revolution. 4 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 11. Universities participating in European Universities Initiative 101 including digital ones, is mostly left to the discretion of administrative staff. 4.3.4 Human capital Generally, the level of competence of the teaching and academic staff at the surveyed universities was rated on high or medium level. The highest-rated Table 4.26 How does your university prepare teaching and academic staff for the ongoing digital transformation and the technological changes that come with it? Answer Frequency We do not provide systematic training programmes for teaching staff at our university; we leave the acquisition of new skills and competences (including digital) to their own discretion. 0 Basic training programmes for teaching staff are provided at our university, primarily focused on preserving the standard and quality of teaching. 5 Comprehensive programmes of various training courses for teaching staff both mandatory and optional are conducted at our university, aimed at developing their knowledge, competences and skills in the changing conditions of the educational ecosystem. 6 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 11. Table 4.27 How does your university prepare administrative staff for the ongoing digital transformation and the technological changes that come with it? Answer Frequency We do not provide systematic training programmes for administrative staff at our university; we leave the acquisition of new skills and competences (including digital) to their own discretion. 0 Basic training programmes for administrative staff are provided at our university, primarily focused on preserving the standard and quality of the university’s administrative service. 6 Comprehensive programmes of various training courses for administrative staff both mandatory and optional are conducted at our university, aimed at developing their knowledge, competences and skills in the changing conditions of the educational ecosystem. 5 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 11. 102 Universities participating in European Universities Initiative competences were: (1) ability to use digital software and tools; (2) smooth transitioning between modes of work (traditional, remote, hybrid); and (3) remote teamworking using digital tools (Table 4.28). Accordingly, the level of competence of the administrative staff was rated slightly higher. The highest rated competences were (1) ability to use digital software and tools, (2) remote teamworking using digital tools and (3) managing people who work remotely using digital tools (Table 4.29). The most attractive training courses for managerial staff would be those regarding business strategy management and planning (Table 4.30). The most attractive training courses for teaching and academic staff would be those regarding internal communication and data collection and analysis (Table 4.31). The most attractive training courses for administrative staff would be those regarding working in diverse dispersed teams (Table 4.32). Table 4.28 How would you rate the level of competence of the teaching and academic staff at your university? Answer High level Medium level Basic level Hard to say Ability to use digital software and tools 5 5 0 1 Willingness and openness to work with AI solutions 2 4 2 3 Smooth transitioning between modes of work (traditional, remote, hybrid) 5 5 0 1 Remote teamworking using digital tools 5 5 0 1 Managing people who work remotely using digital tools 5 4 1 1 Remote learning using digital tools and online platforms 5 4 0 2 Working and interacting with systems based on artificial intelligence 1 4 2 4 Solving complex problems using digital tools 3 3 2 3 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 11. Universities participating in European Universities Initiative 103 Table 4.29 How would you rate the level of competence of the administrative staff at your university? Answer High level Medium level Basic level Hard to say Ability to use digital software and tools 6 3 1 1 Willingness and openness to work with AI solutions 2 4 1 4 Smooth transitioning between modes of work (traditional, remote, hybrid) 5 4 1 1 Remote teamworking using digital tools 6 2 2 1 Managing people who work remotely using digital tools 6 2 2 1 Remote learning using digital tools and online platforms 4 1 2 4 Working and interacting with systems based on artificial intelligence 3 2 3 3 Solving complex problems using digital tools 5 2 3 1 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 11. Table 4.30 Which training courses for managerial staff would you find attractive to support your university’s digital transformation process? Answer Frequency Business strategy management and planning 4 Management of dispersed teams 3 Data collection and analysis 3 Internal communication 3 Advanced digital competences 2 Working with specific digital tools (e.g. CAD and SAP) 2 None of the above 2 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 11. 104 Universities participating in European Universities Initiative Other most attractive activities aiming to support university’s digital transformation process were (1) observing good practices at other universities with similar characteristics/educational profile and (2) mentoring of managerial staff in the context of organisational and process changes in higher education (Table 4.33). 4.3.5 Product While asking about the innovative teaching solutions introduced by the university, two were the most important: fabrication laboratories and Table 4.31 Which training courses for teaching and academic staff would you find attractive to support your university’s digital transformation process? Answer Frequency Internal communication 5 Data collection and analysis 4 Advanced digital competences 3 Working with specific digital tools (e.g. CAD and SAP) 3 Working in diverse dispersed teams 3 None of the above 1 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 11. Table 4.32 Which training courses for administrative staff would you find attractive to support your university’s digital transformation process? Answer Frequency Working in diverse dispersed teams 7 Internal communication 6 Data collection and analysis 5 Advanced digital competences 2 None of the above 2 Working with specific digital tools (e.g. CAD and SAP) 1 Source: Own work based on survey results. N = 11. Universities participating in European Universities Initiative 105 Table 4.37 (Continued) European perspective American perspective implemented centrally with top-bottom approach. The biggest obstacle to digital transformation is lack of finance and lack of public administration support. digital transformation is lack of adequate competences of managerial staff but similarly to Europe lack of finance is also reported. II. Management model of the university Most researched universities undergo organizational change towards Education 4.0. However, digital tools rarely support the work of staff. Researched universities are very open to partnerships and networking. Organizational change at universities manifests itself in introducing automated and flexible processes that minimise the need for direct supervision of employees by superiors. Digital tools support the work of staff. Researched universities are very open to partnerships and networking. III. Infrastructure Most of researched universities use advanced technological solutions to optimize teaching, research and administration. Overall, basic software and tools are used but advanced and intelligent systems are increasingly implemented. Intelligent systems for data processing and analysis have already been partially implemented to improve the teaching, research and administrative processes, but these solutions that do not Most of researched universities use advanced technological solutions to optimize teaching, research and administration. The implementation of advanced and intelligent software and tools prevails. Intelligent systems for data processing and analysis have already been partially implemented to improve the teaching, research and administrative processes, but these solutions that do not cover the entirety of the processes carried out. (Continued) 112 Universities participating in European Universities Initiative universities are overall slightly more advanced in their digital transformation, and (2) American universities apply digital solutions in a more integrated way. Yet, it can also be concluded that digital transformation at universities is still a challenge worldwide, and there is a need for various supportive instruments and initiatives to boost the process. Table 4.37 (Continued) European perspective American perspective cover the entirety of the processes carried out. IV. Human capital Most of researched universities provide basic trainings in the use of technology. Administration staff is most competent in using technologies. Most needed trainings refer to data collection and analysis. Peer learning and networking support the processes of digital transformation most. Most of researched universities provide various trainings in the use of technology. Administration staff is most competent in using technologies but teaching and research staff also have a good command of technologies. Most needed trainings refer to internal communication and working in diverse dispersed teams Peer learning supports the processes of digital transformation most. V. Product Most commonly various types of labs using high technologies have been created. Courses taught by practitioners and experts from outside of academia are most valuable for the development of students’ competences. Curricula are usually updated in consultations with students’ representatives. Most commonly various types of labs using high technologies have been created. Creating dedicated laboratories for learning selected competences of the future is most valuable for the development of students’ competences. Curricula are usually updated in consultations with students’ representatives. Source: Own work. Universities participating in European Universities Initiative 113 4.4 Digital maturity of universities within European Universities alliances And finally, in this study, the digital transformation is represented as a threestep ladder that leads to achieving digital maturity and unlocks the potential that new technologies can provide. This ladder starts from the organisations operating under a traditional model (step 1 – beginner), then progresses to organisations using certain digital solutions in a sporadic and non-integrated manner based on individual needs and contexts (step 2 – transitional), and finally reaches the stage where organisations use integrated digital solutions across all aspects of their operations (step 3 – advanced). In general terms, the study’s results show that universities taking part in EUI alliances are most frequently positioned at the second, transitional level according to the aforementioned three-step ladder model. This suggests a gradual streamlining of organisational processes towards intelligent management based on the adoption of new digital technologies and Education 4.0 solutions. These universities also demonstrate an increased use of various digital tools, despite the fact that personnel management is still largely conducted through direct means. Lastly, they are adapting their teaching and academic research to the demands of evolving educational realities through the continuous implementation of advanced, intelligent systems. It is important to note that the initial research of this study presented in Chapter 3 proved that the digital competences of educational leaders, including those from higher education sector, are sufficient for effective management and sustainability of international collaboration projects. This second part of the study shows that, given technological advancements and challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic, these leaders still need further personal development within the context of the ongoing organisational changes at universities. Generally, these inevitable organisational changes occurring within universities, encompassing governance, didactics and research, due to factors like the COVID-19 pandemic, have been emphasised by Ahrens and Zascierinska (2020), Rohman et al. (2020) and Velásquez and Lara (2021). The research presented above provides evidence that this perspective might indeed be valid. However, in-depth interviews with representatives of Californian universities have proved that what contributes most to the digital maturity of a university is not an ad hoc digitalisation resulting from unexpected situations such as COVID-19 pandemic, but rather long-term digitalisation strategy, plan and its implementation. As regards American experiences, it must be stressed that the study results are relatively similar to the ones obtained from universities participating in European Universities alliances. However, taking into account the three-step ladder concept described above, it should be noted 114 Universities participating in European Universities Initiative that researched American universities position themselves somewhere between the second and third steps, or at least at the top of the second one. This means that their digital maturity is slightly higher than the digital maturity of universities participating in European Universities alliances. References Ahrens, A., & Zascierinska, J. (2020). Post-COVID university governance in Germany. Education Reform: Education Content Research and Implementation Problems, 2, 7–16. Aula, H. M., & Tienari, J. (2011). Becoming “world-class”? Reputation-building in a university merger. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 7.1, 7–29. Frame, A., & Curyło, B. (2022). Bringing Erasmus home: The European Universities initiative as an example of Everyday Europeanhood. Journal of Contemporary European Studies. Gehrke, S. (2014). The idea of the digital university: Ancient traditions, disruptive technologies and the battle for the soul of higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 37(4), 565–567. John Hopkins University Press. Harman, G., & Harman, K. (2003). Institutional merger in higher education. Lessons from international experience. Tertiary Education and Management, 9(1), 29–38. Hazemi, R., Hailes, S., & Wilbur, S. (Eds.) (2012). The digital university: Reinventing the academy. Science and Business Media, Springer. Hoseth, C., & Thampapillai, S. (2020). International partnership dynamics and types. In J. Gatewood (Ed.), NAFSA’s guide to international partnerships. Developing sustainable academic collaborations. NAFSA. Larsson, R., & Finkelstein, S. (1999). Integrating strategic, organizational, and human resource perspective on merger and acquisitions: A case survey of synergy realization. Organization Science, 10(1), 1–26. Marks, M. L., & Mirvis, P. H. (1998). Joining forces: Making one plus one equal three in mergers, acquisitions and alliances. Jossey-Bass. McCluskey, F. B., & Winter, M. L. (2012). The idea of the digital university: Ancient traditions, disruptive technologies and the battle for the soul of higher education. Westphalia Press. Poszytek, P., & Budzanowska, A. (Eds.) (2023). European universities in Poland. Implementation of development strategy. FRSE Publishing. 10.47050/67587105. Rohman, M., Marji, D. A. S., Sugandi, R. M., & Nurhadi, D. (2020). On-line learning in higher education during COVID-19 pandemic: Students’ perceptions. Journal of Talent Development and Excellence, 12(2s), 3644–3651. Sułkowski, Ł. (2017). Fuzje uczelni. Czy w szaleństwie jest metoda? PWN. Sułkowski, Ł. (2022). Zarządzanie uczelnią cyfrową. Między utopią wolności a dystopią wiedzy. PWN Välimaa, J., Aittola, H., & Ursin, J. (2014). University mergers in Finland: Mediating global competition. New Directions for Higher Education, 168, 41–53. Velásquez, R. M. A., & Lara, J. V. M. (2021). Knowledge management in two universities before and during the COVID-19 effect in Peru. Technology in Science, 64. Universities participating in European Universities Initiative 115 5 Ecosystem for sustainable change Bridging the gap between the world of business and the world of education – towards the paradigm of Education 4.0 5.1 The common understanding of competences 4.0 Regarding competences 4.0, an analysis of the Scopus database reveals that scientific discussions primarily take place within technical and industrial fields, as well as in the world of business, with a focus on practical applications of the discussed concepts. Accordingly, Table 5.1 shows in detail that discussions on competences 4.0, as defined in Chapter 1, are held in specific functional contexts rather than being widely discussed in the broader context of education. On a more precise level, Table 5.2 shows the landscape of scientific discussions on digital and social competences across the top five areas. Table 5.2 shows that even social competences, as part of a broader concept of competences 4.0, are mainly discussed within technical areas. It is also interesting to note that the authors deliberate more often on social than digital competences. This finding corresponds very well with McKinsey’s research, which substantiates the necessity to transition from hard skills to soft skills, predominantly encompassed within the broader category of social competences, to address the demands and challenges brought about by the Fourth Industrial Revolution (McKinsey 2018). Moreover, there is a need to proliferate the discussion on competences 4.0 beyond business and technical fields. Social sciences and the education sector should engage with the subject of competences 4.0, conduct research on it, and more extensively incorporate it to bridge the gap between the education and business/industry sectors. Furthermore, the concept of competences 4.0 possesses a generic nature and is applicable across various contexts. Practitioners from diverse fields can draw from it as a wellspring of inspiration for research. Consequently, the concept of competences should be used for curriculum development at universities and for recruiting processes in companies. DOI: 10.4324/9781003482246-6 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Table 5.1 Number of publications on competences 4.0 by countries, document types and subject areas Country Number of publications * Document type Number of publications * Subject area Number of publications * Germany 3,560 Conference Paper 11,078 Engineering 14,901 Italy 2,166 Article 10,728 Computer Science 12,834 United States 2,118 Book Chapter 2,266 Business, Management and Accounting 5,111 China 1,647 Review 1,271 Decision Sciences 3,728 United Kingdom 1,603 Conference Review 617 Social Sciences 3,633 Source: Own work. Notes * Set of publications at a current time (21 June 2023). Ecosystem for sustainable change 117 5.2 The development of competences 4.0 at universities – agenda for the future In reference to the theoretical assumptions of universities of the future presented in Chapter 2, and the common understanding of competences 4.0 across various scientific fields, this section of the chapter aims to present practical solutions that might help universities embark on the path towards Education 4.0. This is a crucial issue in the light of the research findings presented in Chapter 4, which indicate that universities, allied within European Universities consortia, are generally supportive of their students but not necessarily effective in developing the competences of the future, i.e. competences 4.0. Based on the competences of the future, the research group, of which the author of this study was a member, established by the Platform for the Industry of the Future – a Polish NGO – designed a certification system for universities. This system assists universities in assessing and reflecting on the extent to which they are fostering the development of future-oriented competences among their students. The certification system presents and defines the standards that should be followed and respected by the universities of the future. These are (1) curriculum, (2) internal university ecosystem, (3) cooperation with the external ecosystem, (4) the teaching staff and (5) university infrastructure. Additionally, the certification system provides and defines detailed criteria for each element of the aforementioned standards. The system also includes indicators that measure the fulfilment of these criteria. The certification system is presented in Table 5.3. Table 5.2 Digital and social competences across the top five scientific areas Digital competences (total 25 publications) Social competences (total 674 publications) Scientific area Number of publications Scientific area Number of publications Engineering 15 Engineering 388 Computer Science 14 Computer Science 289 Business, Management and Accounting 13 Business, Management and Accounting 185 Social Sciences 10 Decision Sciences 113 Decision Sciences 5 Social Sciences 92 Source: Own work. 118 Ecosystem for sustainable change Table 5.3 Universities certification system standards: towards Education 4.0 Curriculum Criteria Indicators of compliance The curriculum is oriented towards the goals of developing the competences of the future. (MANDATORY) [D] The learning objectives and learning content of the course syllabuses go beyond the knowledge of the subject and include most of the competences identified in Chapter 1 as the competences of the future. [D] The individual courses combine the objectives of the knowledge of the subject and the competences of the future, allowing students to pursue them concurrently. [O] Students and educators spontaneously identify some of the competences of the future when describing the objectives of the courses they are taking. The curriculum engages students in solving practical problems and supports them in finding the uses for the competences they acquire. (MANDATORY) [D] The curricula in the area covered by the Standard include a variety of forms that bring students into contact with the practical challenges of industry (e.g. internships, implementation projects, consultations, study trips). [O] Students can see how the competences developed during their studies can be used and believe that these studies provide an opportunity to be in touch with the practical challenges of the economy of the future. [O/D] Employers employing graduates of the course covered by the Standard are positive about their preparation to take on practical professional challenges OR the university has results of the track survey of the graduates that lead to such conclusions. 3. The curriculum is delivered in a way that fosters collaboration and communication. [D] The forms and methods of education included in the curriculum covered by the Standard provide numerous opportunities to work in task groups and project teams. [O] Students in the courses covered by the Standard recognise that their studies provide them with numerous opportunities to communicate and collaborate on tasks related to their curriculum. (Continued) Ecosystem for sustainable change 119 Table 5.3 (Continued) Curriculum Criteria Indicators of compliance 4. The curriculum is agreed internally and regularly updated. [D] The university monitors student satisfaction and regularly examines the results of the curriculum covered by the Standard. [D] The area covered by the Standard includes courses that have been developed or significantly modified in the last three years as a result of evaluation or to better meet the needs of students and other stakeholders. [O] Syllabuses for new courses are developed through consultation with other instructors and correspond with the rest of the curriculum. Internal environment Criteria Indicators of compliance 5. The university provides an environment for students to develop their own potential and shape their individual development path. (MANDATORY) [D] Students have influence on the selection of a significant part of the courses and shaping the learning pathway. [D] Students have access to educational offers that go beyond the strict course of study and help them develop the competences of the future (e.g. certification training, acquisition and validation of micro-qualifications, dedicated courses, study visits). [D] There are numerous examples of university-supported activities that develop the individual potential of students (e.g. participation in competitions, conferences, development of prototypes and inventions) that took place during the last academic year. [D] Students can benefit from individual support (e.g. counselling, coaching, tutoring) in shaping their course of study and career planning. Access to development services is simple and equal for all students interested in them. [O] Students recognise the variety of development opportunities offered by the university and find them valuable. (Continued) 120 Ecosystem for sustainable change Table 5.3 (Continued) Curriculum Criteria Indicators of compliance 6. The university teaches interdisciplinary collaboration and creates the conditions to develop it. (MANDATORY) [D] There are active academic clubs or other student organisations within the university providing opportunities for joint projects (including those related to the needs of the industry of the future). [D] The university runs or supports and co-finances cyclical events that foster interdisciplinary collaboration between students (e.g. hackathons, workshops, do it yourself environment, business hubs, incubators and entrepreneurial academies). [O] Students perceive the forms of collaborative activity available to them as part of their studies as diverse, valuable and supported by the university. 7. The university creates an environment that is open to diversity and encourages exchange and dialogue. [D] The university participates in student and faculty exchange programmes with foreign universities. [O] Foreign students studying at the university (including international exchange students) perceive and positively evaluate the development opportunities provided by the university and the support in integrating into the academic community. [D] The university takes active steps to promote student diversity and to counteract stereotypes or exclusion. [O] Students believe that the university environment is safe and offers support for all, or perceive strong efforts on the part of the university to do so. Cooperation with the surrounding environment Criteria Indicators of compliance 8. The university supports the professional development of its students and graduates. [D] Student placements co-organised by the university are mostly carried out in organisations which provide opportunities for the development of competences in line with the field of study. (Continued) Ecosystem for sustainable change 121 and learning, universities can drive economic development in their neighbouring areas, which also helps them to fulfil the third mission of academia. Universities can also provide talented people with an innovative environment, harness regional strengths on a global scale and foster an open exchange of knowledge, staff and expertise. They can also act as the hub of a knowledge network or cluster serving the local economy and community, on the provision that local and regional authorities implement intelligent specialisation strategies that facilitate focus of resources on priorities and maximise the impact of these institutions. However, they do not act in void, and their interactions with the outside world, namely with the private sector, are a fact that needs a deeper analysis. Consequently, university-business cooperation is nowadays the focal point of public debate within governments, international organisations and researchers themselves. 5.4 Towards innovation in education Education does not function in a void, so in order to have a better insight into the processes connected with its development a reference to a broader socio-economic context must be made. Having in mind that the projects researched in Chapter 3 have Polish educational institutions as coordinators working together with a huge range of other European partners, it is proposed to relate the findings to external data on innovation both for Poland and Europe. And since research presented in Chapter 4 refers to European University alliances coordinated by universities from different European countries, it is also proposed to see the findings of this research in the context of innovative potential of Europe. This allows us to see the whole phenomenon from the broader point of view. According to the Global Innovation Index 2022, Poland is ranked 36th overall in the world and 24th in Europe. However, with a score of selected parameters connected directly with the research and discussion area in this book, namely, 31 for education, 70 for tertiary education, 32 for research and development and 22 for new technology infrastructure, Poland’s score is somehow representative for European average. The detailed subparameters for these categories mentioned above for Poland and Europe respectively are presented in Table 5.4 and Table 5.5. The selected data from Global Innovation Index, relevant to this study, provides an overview of the broader national context of the country’s potential for innovation. This data indicates that Poland is not particularly innovative in this regard, especially concerning research and development. However, in terms of investments and developments in tertiary education, the country does possess some potential to address challenges associated with technological waves and revolutions. 128 Ecosystem for sustainable change Although European average value for investments in research and development as well as in information and communication technology development is higher than for Poland, the investments and developments in tertiary education in Poland are substantially higher than on average in Europe. This generally means that Polish educational institutions participating in European innovative projects presented in this book function in a promising and developing national innovative ecosystem and in a relatively Table 5.4 Selected innovation parameters and their value for Poland Human capital and research Education 31 Expenditure on education, % GDP 58 Government funding/pupil, secondary, % GDP/cap 49 School life expectancy, years 36 PISA scales in reading, maths and science 9 Pupil-teacher ratio, secondary 20 Tertiary education 70 Tertiary enrolment, % gross 35 Graduates in science and engineering, % 72 Tertiary inbound mobility, % 58 Research and development (R&D) 32 Researchers, FTE/mn pop. 29 Gross expenditure on R&D, % GDP 31 Global corporate R&D investors, top 3, mn USD 30 QS university ranking, top 3 41 Infrastructure Information and communication technologies 22 ICT access 42 ICT use 48 Government’s online service 22 E-participation 9 Source: Dutta, Lanvin, León and Wunsch-Vincent 2022. Ecosystem for sustainable change 129 well-developed European innovative ecosystem. On the one hand, it also means that there are some conditions for implementing innovations, and on the other hand, Erasmus+ projects presented and researched in this book can contribute greatly to the process of making a country and the entire Europe more innovative. Table 5.5 Selected innovation parameters and their value for Europe Human capital and research Education 36 Expenditure on education, % GDP 52 Government funding/pupil, secondary, % GDP/cap 37 School life expectancy, years 34 PISA scales in reading, maths and science 31 Pupil-teacher ratio, secondary 31 Tertiary education 37 Tertiary enrolment, % gross 36 Graduates in science and engineering, % 46 Tertiary inbound mobility, % 36 Research and development (R&D) 40 Researchers, FTE/mn pop. 28 Gross expenditure on R&D, % GDP 33 Global corporate R&D investors, top 3, mn USD 27 QS university ranking, top 3 44 Infrastructure Information and communication technologies 38 ICT access 40 ICT use 33 Government’s online service 42 E-participation 41 Source: Dutta, Lanvin, León and Wunsch-Vincent 2022. 130 Ecosystem for sustainable change To provide a comprehensive view, it’s crucial to highlight two observations from the Global Innovation Index 2022: • Innovation investments flourished during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic and experienced significant growth in 2021. However, their ongoing resilience for 2022 remains uncertain due to new global challenges. • Technological progress, adoption and the socioeconomic impact of innovation all display indications of fragility. The future of growth driven by innovation is under question. (Dutta, Lanvin, León and Wunsch-Vincent 2022:21) Yet, at this point, it must be stressed that both Erasmus+ partnership projects and European Universities alliances described above may contribute significantly to the development process and may be real innovation drivers. The Global Innovation Index also lists several factors that underlie and contribute to the development based on innovations. Among many others, these are: • Expenditure on education and research • Cooperation between business and academia • Investments from abroad • New businesses • Work productivity and competitive advantage • Patents • Access to technology • Industry diversification • Export of high technologies. This brings us back to the Erasmus+ programme and European Universities Initiative with their transversal priority of digitalisation and the creation of virtual educational and research hubs. Within both initiatives, universities enhance their education and research budgets and potentials, cooperate with business while developing innovative solutions for managing or running their educational and research activities, bring investments from abroad in the form of European Union’s donations, create new business solutions, improve effectiveness of their operations, gain competitive advantage on educational and research markets and so on. Eventually, these projects may lead to gaining new patents, developing new technologies and commercialising them. The examples of such projects are numerous, and their descriptions can be found in Annex I. All this process is crucial, especially for countries like Poland. According to European Commission’s Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI Ecosystem for sustainable change 131 2022), Poland is below EU’s average in this index (European Commission 2022). Digital Economy and Society Index is European Union’s main tool to monitor closely the progress of digital modernisation and transformation of respective Member States, both from economic and social point of view. The full data of this Index is presented in Table 5.6. Table 5.6 Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) 2022 Country Index Finland 69,6 Denmark 69,3 Netherlands 67,4 Sweden 65,2 Ireland 62,7 Malta 60,9 Spain 60,8 Luxembourg 58,9 Estonia 56,5 Austria 54 Slovenia 53,4 France 53,3 Germany 52,9 Lithuania 52,7 European Union 52,24 Portugal 50,8 Belgium 50,3 Latvia 49,7 Italy 49,3 Czechia 49,1 Cyprus 48,4 (Continued) 132 Ecosystem for sustainable change All this enables us to place the discourse on educational leaders within a wider national and European context, and subsequently, to conclude potential advancements in the future. References Bryła, P. (2014). Moz liwosci wspołpracy polskich uczelni wyz szych ze sfera  biznesu. Studia edukacyjne, 31, 95–112. Dutta, S., Lanvin, B., León, L., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2022). Global innovation index. What is the future of innovation-driven growth? World Intellectual Property Organization. Retrieved from: https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-2022report. European Commission (2022). Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI 2022). Shaping Europe’s digital future. Retrieved from: https://digital-strategy.ec. europa.eu/en/library/digital-economy-and-society-index-desi-2022. Gray, A. (2016). The 10 skills you need to thrive the Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum. Higher Education-Business Collaboration Index (2017). The catalogue of HEBE Index indicators. FRSE. Jelonek, M., Strycharz, J., Strzebońska, A., & Szczucka, A. (2017). Konceptualizacja modelu obszarów współpracy nauka-biznes. Kraków. McKinsey Global Institute (2018). Skill shift: Automation and the future of the workforce. Retrieved from: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/futureof-work/skill-shiftautomation-and-the-future-of-the-workforce [accessed on 9 August 2020]. Strojny, P., Nowak, P., Hetmanczyk, M., Malak, J., & Skrzek, K. (2021). Standardy kształcenia kompetencji przyszłos ci. Fundacja Platforma Przemysłu Przyszłosci. Table 5.6 (Continued) Country Index Croatia 47,5 Hungary 44,3 Slovakia 43,4 Poland 40,5 Greece 38,9 Bulgaria 37,7 Romania 30,6 Source: European Commission. Ecosystem for sustainable change 133 Conclusions In light of the presented study and the corresponding discussion, the answers to the research questions are as follows: The levels of digital competences among Erasmus+ project leaders are relatively high, which is not surprising considering the inherent homogeneity within the group of educational leaders in this regard. This level of digital competence enables them to function within networked, international projects or organisations in order to achieve planned goals and effects even in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, digital competence empowers them with resilience to adeptly manage and sustain their projects during difficult times. The overall resilience and efficacy are further facilitated by their social competences, which are essential within the context of networked activities and projects. Researched educational leaders have benefited from their adeptness in maintaining contacts and communicating effectively. However, they did display shortcomings in stress management and adapting swiftly to new environments. As the digital maturity of educational leaders cannot be analysed and assessed solely in connection with digital competence, it is imperative to consider both digital and social competences as interconnected elements that together form a distinct amalgamation. Despite certain deficiencies in social competence, the general evaluation of researched educational leaders’ digital maturity, as reflected in their effectiveness in steering and sustaining projects during the pandemic, is affirmative. Overall, it can be concluded from the research results that project leaders’ social competences are one of the most influential driving forces behind the need for organisational change and eventually digital transformation. Furthermore, their high learning potential has also proven useful and effective, enhancing their overall digital maturity. Despite their self-assessment indicating a lack in stress management and adaptability to novel conditions, their cumulative lifelong learning index remains relatively high. This implies that their awareness of the ongoing process during the pandemic, along with their strengths and weaknesses, is reasonably well DOI: 10.4324/9781003482246-7 This chapter has been made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. developed. Additionally, their willingness to learn and discover new strategies for successfully continuing their projects has bolstered their resilience. Regarding universities participating in the European Universities Initiative, the situation is more complex, as we are dealing with institutional leaders. Research findings prove that their level of digital maturity is between basic and advanced. In this context, “basic” refers to the conventional use of technology, while “advanced” denotes the integration and use of technology that includes automation, including technology based on artificial intelligence. It has been observed that in many cases, these universities, operating within European Universities alliances, have adopted digital strategies and implemented high technology solutions for administration, supporting the educational process and facilitating research activities. Awareness of the necessity for continuous enhancement of competences, particularly digital ones, is relatively high among various university staff. University authorities support their staff in this regard by providing relevant courses. However, this is not entirely aligned with the level of investments made in digital infrastructure. The inadequacy of investments in technological infrastructure is also apparent in the aforementioned Global Innovation Index, which goes in line with the findings of this research. It is also worth noting that universities frequently report their extensive efforts to update their educational offerings to cultivate competences 4.0 among their students. Apart from the Global Innovation Index, the comparison to experiences with digital transformation of American universities also constitutes a valuable point of reference. Although digital transformation at universities is a global challenge, American universities are more advanced in implementing new technologies in all spheres of activities, namely, teaching, research and administration. Their organisational change in the context of Industry 4.0 has been more substantial. Among all the American higher education institutions researched, Stanford University is an example of good practice and its success results, first of all, from the fact that it has a coherent digital transformation strategy that was initiated years before the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the university was prepared to go online when the pandemic hit, and the whole process of digital transformation has not been driven by ad hoc and unforeseen situation. The process has been gradual and systematic. Yet, it can be asserted that Erasmus+ and European Universities Initiative educational leaders, both at the individual and institutional levels, possess a sufficient level of digital maturity. This maturity enables them to actively participate in innovative educational European projects and initiatives, as well as to confront challenges arising from global technological advancements. While their digital maturity may not be at Conclusions 135 an advanced stage, it is adequate for modernising their institutions and facilitating their effective engagement within intricate networks, thereby positioning them for future competitive advantage. Furthermore, it can be affirmed that the level of digital maturity demonstrated by researched educational leaders facilitates organisational transformation towards the vision of future universities, as defined in Chapter 2. At the very least, it can be confidently stated that the level of digital maturity among researched educational leaders does not hinder the progression towards Education 4.0. The paradigm of Education 4.0 is built upon key elements, including digitalisation, networking (particularly on an international scale) and flexibility in governance and didactics. Research findings also prove that this process of organisational change is highly likely to be continued in the mode of exchanging experiences and good practice on the European level among European leaders, although the broader context depicted by the Global Innovation Index 2022 for both Poland, Europe, and worldwide is not very much favourable. What is more, Poland’s score in the Digital Economy and Society Index in general is not satisfactory either in relation to its European counterparts. However, according to some researchers, in the post-pandemic era, an organisational, cultural and mental change will likely and permanently lead to the development of digital universities (Davey and Galan-Muros 2020:599–617; Sangster, Stoner and Flood 2020). While Ferrazzi, Gohar and Weyrich’s (2022:9) research shows that the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated digital transformation in companies significantly. The research presented in this book also shows the signs of such acceleration in universities. Consequently, the development of digital universities that might be witnessed in the near future is possible. However, there is a threat that technological gap will increase, and it will be more and more difficult for educational sector as such to catch up with all possibilities offered by technology, especially the ones based on artificial intelligence. For example, none of researched universities reported the use of advanced tools and applications in administration and didactics based on artificial intelligence. Neither do they use complex data warehouses that provide a platform for highly sophisticated data processing – for example, such a service is delivered by Silicon Valley’s Snowflake, which is a world-leading provider in this respect, and its solutions are already used by the merchandise sector. Accordingly, there is a need for further research so that the possible proliferation of this technological gap could be monitored. Regardless of what happens and which direction digital transformation in educational sector goes, one can be sure that in all walks of life people will live and work alongside machines and sophisticated technology. Hopefully, this coexistence will have a complementary and not a harmful substituting character (Susskind 2020:28–30), where machines and technology will augment people’s capabilities and not replace them (Harvard Business 136 Conclusions Review 2019:109–110). In the case of educational institutions, this should lead to better effectiveness in educational activities and will help prepare students better for the new socio-economic reality. This, in turn, will provide a platform to create new leaders who will continue digital transformation intelligently and sustainably. References Davey, T., & Galan-Muros, V. (2020). Understanding entrepreneurial academics – how they perceive their environment differently. Journal of Management Development, 39(5), 599–617. Ferrazzi, K., Gohar, K., & Weyrich, N. (2022). Competing in the new world of work. How radical adaptability separates the best from the rest. Harvard Business Review Press. Harvard Business Review. (2019). Artificial intelligence. Harvard Business Review Press. Sangster, A., Stoner, G., & Flood, B. (2020). Insights into accounting education in a COVID-19 world. Accounting Education, 29(5), 431–562. Susskind, D. (2020). A world without work. Technology, automation, and how we should respond. Metropolitan Books. Conclusions 137