What would happen if we discovered that the chaotic elements of university life - the parts administrators spend millions trying to streamline - are actually the hidden engine of true learning?
The Balancing Act in Higher Education
Universities must juggle two opposing needs. They need to run efficiently to manage tens of thousands of students across many resources. At the same time, they must create unique learning experiences that don't fit neatly into boxes. This raises an interesting question: Do universities actually need some "planned messiness" to succeed?
Nick Psanoudakis points out that scheduling classes affects everything from student happiness to how well the university runs. Every decision about when and where to hold classes involves weighing many different needs against each other. The old way might focus on efficiency through strict rules, but this often makes students and staff unhappy.
When Messiness Helps
Dr. Kenneth Moore describes how university staff often work with many computer screens, dashboards, and spreadsheets at once. What looks messy is actually creative problem-solving, people making their own tools to get things done.
This "organised chaos" isn't just inefficiency. It's often necessary to deal with the complex world of higher education. When an advisor creates a special spreadsheet to track student needs, they're often working around the limits of standard systems that can't handle education's complexity.
The Myth of the Perfect System
Many universities dream of having one perfect system that holds all their data. But such projects cost too much and might fail. More importantly, they might accidentally remove the helpful flexibility that comes from having different approaches.
Think about a completely integrated scheduling system designed to use space efficiently. While it might look good on paper, it could create rigid schedules that force students into inconvenient class times or eliminate the casual spaces where real learning often happens.
Finding a Middle Ground
The answer isn't choosing between chaos and order but designing systems that provide structure while keeping needed flexibility. When data is organised around what people actually need rather than abstract system requirements, it creates what we might call "flexible structure", a framework that makes sense without being too rigid. For example, a course management system could show different views to advisors, schedulers, and teachers, each tailored to their specific needs.
A common refrain of modern management is “if you're not measuring it, you're not managing it”. But this approach brings up another challenge: How do we measure the human side of education that doesn't fit neatly into numbers? The most meaningful parts of education, mentoring relationships, moments of discovery, working together, often happen between formal structures. It leads us to more nebulous concepts such as “Belonging”, “Mentorship” and “Collaboration” that are much more difficult to measure. Focusing too much on metrics risks improving only what we can measure while missing what matters most.
The Answer: Working with Tension, Not Against It
Universities should see the tension between standardisation and customisation not as a problem to solve but as a dynamic to manage. The goal isn't to eliminate complexity but to use it productively.
What would a university that embraces this paradox look like? It would likely include:
Smart Measurement that tracks both efficiency and quality of experience
Shared Data Rules that set common standards while allowing for (and encouraging) local customisation
Augmented AI and Automation that standardises routine work while preserving human judgment and empowering human intervention
People-First Design that organises information around actual human priorities rather than abstract data
The tension between efficiency and customisation isn't a flaw in how universities operate, it's a core feature of higher education. By working with this tension rather than fighting it, universities can achieve what might seem impossible: operations that are both more efficient and more responsive to individual needs.
Credit goes to Professor Merlin Crossley from the University of New South Wales for some of the ideas that led to this thought piece.