IDENTIFYING BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED

WITH CAMPUS PORTALS ADOPTION

A Comparative Case Study of Saudi and U.K. Universities

Mohammed Altayar, N. Ben Fairweather and Neil McBride

Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility, De Montfort University, The Gateway, Leicester, U.K.

Keywords: Campus Portals, Adoption Barriers, University, Saudi Arabia, UK, Comparative Studies, Higher Education.

Abstract: Enterprise Information Portals have become crucial components in contemporary organisations, and

universities and other higher education institutions are not exempt. While there are many studies concerning

the adoption, implementation and utilisation of EIPs in organisations, there are few studies that touch this

issue in the academic environment. The aim of this paper is to report findings on the challenges associated

with the adoption of campus portals. This study adopts a comparative qualitative research approach based

on multiple case studies in Saudi and UK universities. A research methodology was designed to conduct the

research and to collect data through semi-structured interviews and documentation, and then analysed using

various qualitative data analysis techniques such as coding and categorising, cross-interview analysis and

document analysis. The findings show that there are many barriers and challenges that may arise as a result

of campus portals adoption including: organisational, technical, users, innovation, and financial related

challenges. To overcome such challenges, we argue that a strong business case must be established from the

outset of the project to drive the portal agendas and to address all aspects related to the project. Finally, the

paper concludes with the main findings and provides some recommendations.

1 INTRODUCTION

The use of information and communication

technology (ICT) in universities has become

imperative to support business and organisational

activities. With the massive advance of web

technology, and especially the emergence of Internet

technologies, a recent phenomenon that has spread

throughout universities is what are called Enterprise

Information Portals (EIPs) or Campus Portals. In a

growing number of countries, academics, students

and other staff are using the web to find information

they need to support their daily needs and activities

including teaching, research and administration.

Campus Portals (CPs) have been adopted by many

universities in the past few years. These

technologies have revolutionised campus computing

by facilitating communication and collaboration,

improving access to services and resources and

integrating different systems and applications.

Although some studies have identified several key

factors that may contribute to a successful CP

adoption in universities, most of this research has

been conducted from a quantitative perspective in

the form of questionnaires and experiments. This

study extends this line of research and contributes to

literature by reporting a qualitative investigation

based on multiple-case studies of the adoption of

campus portals in some Saudi and UK universities.

In particular, it seeks to identify the barriers and

challenges associated with campus portal adoption.

There is a lack of research that focuses specifically

on this issue. Determining the challenges and

barriers associated with campus portal adoption

could provide solutions for overcoming such

challenges and barriers. The rest of this paper is

organised as follows. First, it provides some

definitions of ‘portals’ and related terms. After that,

a literature review is presented covering portal

technology in the academic environment. Then, the

paper describes the research methodology used.

Finally, the results and findings are presented and

discussed in the light of the literature, and then the

paper finishes with some conclusions and

recommendations.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The concept "portal" is considered to be associated

with internet, intranet and other web technologies. It

195

Altayar M., Ben Fairweather N. and McBride N. (2010).

IDENTIFYING BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH CAMPUS PORTALS ADOPTION - A Comparative Case Study of Saudi and UK

Universities .

In Proceedings of the Multi-Conference on Innovative Developments in ICT, pages 195-205

DOI: 10.5220/0003021801950205

 SciTePress

shares common characteristics with these

technologies either technically or functionally. To

clarify what is meant by portals, some definitions are

needed. Since the development of internet, intranet

and web technologies, new terms and concepts have

emerged in the market and in the literature as well.

This has made it quite difficult to identify the

boundaries of each term. Thus, each term is defined

from a different perspective. Shilakes and Tylman

(1998) coined the term ‘Enterprise Information

Portals’ and define EIPs as "applications that enable

companies to unlock internally and externally stored

information, and provide users a single gateway to

personalised information needed to make business

decisions". Smith (2004) defines a portal as “an

infrastructure providing secure, customisable,

personalisable, integrated access to dynamic content

from a variety of sources, in a variety of source

formats, wherever it is needed". In addition, Detlor

(2000) uses the term "corporate portal" as an

alternative to enterprise portal and defines it as

"single-point Web browser interfaces used within

organisations to promote the gathering, sharing and

dissemination of information throughout the

enterprise". Finally, the term ‘campus portal’ has

been defined by Fuangvut (2005) as “a user-centric

campus-wide Web-based Information System that

incorporates all types of enterprise and third party

information, activities, and services for providing its

stakeholders with a secured personalised and

customised single point of access regardless of the

original resources by using a standard Web

browser”. Having reviewed some definitions of

portals, it can be said that up to now there is no

consensus about the definition of portal, thus, the

term is defined from different perspectives. We

define a campus portal as: “an intelligent and

interactive web-based information system that

provides personalised and customised view and

access to academic and business information,

services and resources for different stakeholders

based on their role at the university through secure

single sign on for different systems and applications.

In order to have successful adoption and

implementation of ICTs in organisations and to

overcome the main barriers and challenges

associated with adoption and implementation

processes, several factors need to be taken into

consideration. According to Bouwman et al (2005)

such factors can be related to the organisational

perspective, the technological perspective, the

economic perspective and the user perspective.

These factors could have positive or negative effects

on ICT adoption and implementation. Previous

research and studies on campus portal adoption and

implementation showed that universities are likely to

encounter several challenges and barriers that are

related to the organisational, technological,

environmental and users perspectives.

Organisational factors are primarily concerned with

the people involved in the adoption in organisations

such as management support, the availability of

resources and change management (Rahim 2007;

Remus 2007). Concerning the technological factors,

Eisler (2003) and Franklin (2004) emphasise the

importance of developing supporting institutional

information technology infrastructure and

architecture. A study by Li and Wood (2005) has

identified several challenges associated with portal

development and implementation. These include: the

integration of the portal with other applications,

implementation of a single-sign-on and security

issues. Thomas (2003) reported that the largest

technical challenge associated with portal

development was systems integration. Jafari and

Sheehan (2003) stress the role of cooperation and

coordination between campus units and departments,

because campus portals bring together campus

constituents who seldom interact and whose interests

are often different. Other writers acknowledge the

dominant role of establishing policies and strategies

when developing a campus portal, for example

(Eilser, 2003; Thomas, 2003; Bunt and Pennock,

2006). In addition, other research and studies

emphasise the importance of understanding users’

needs and requirements including training and

education (Zazelenchuk and Boling, 2003; Pearce,

2003; Pearce, Carpenter and Martin, 2003; Frazee,

Frazee and Sharpe, 2003). Rahim (2007)

investigated the barriers to using business-to-

employee portals in a university setting. The study

found that there were two key factors that

contributed to the low usage of the campus portal:

perceived limited usefulness of the portal's

functionalities and low awareness of both the portal's

capabilities and its role. In addition, these factors

were influenced by two organisational factors: weak

management support and a distributed model of

responsibility for the portal. Finally, a study by

Bolton (2008) showed that the major challenges

faced by UK universities when rolling out campus

portals were time, resources and business

engagement.

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study adopts a comparative qualitative research

approach based on multiple-case studies of the

INNOV 2010 - International Multi-Conference on Innovative Developments in ICT

196

adoption of campus portals in some Saudi and UK

universities. The rationale behind choosing this

approach can be justified as follows. First, this study

aims to compare the adoption of campus portals in

two countries and cultures: Saudi Arabia and the

UK. According to Hantrais (1996) cross-cultural

studies aim to identify, analyse and explain

similarities and differences across societies. In

addition, one of the benefits to be gained from cross-

national work includes a deeper understanding of

other cultures and of their research processes.

Second, the overall aim of this research is to study

the adoption of campus portals in particular

organisations. According to Hunter (2004) the main

focus of qualitative researchers is the personnel

involved in organisations. Thus, qualitative

researchers try to understand, interpret and explain

research problems in terms of the words that people

assign to them. This notion suggests that people and

their institutions in society represent a crucial aspect

of qualitative research. In addition, Bryman (2008)

mentions that in order to understand the outside

world, researchers have to interact directly with its

subject matter. This can be seen as an advantage in

qualitative research as it allows researchers to probe

more information and clarify any ambiguity to

participants that may exist. What is more, qualitative

research helps researchers to address and answer

"how" and "what" questions, which in turn will help

the researcher to understand the nature and

complexity of the process taking place (Creswell,

2007). This study seeks to answer such questions,

for instance: 1) What are the barriers and challenges

associated with campus portal adoption in Saudi and

UK universities? What are the similarities and

differences in the different contexts?

Before embarking on data collection, a pilot study

was conducted as a part of this research in Saudi

Arabia and the UK between October and November

2008. The aim of the pilot study was to make sure

that the relevant data can be obtained from the

respondents and the interview’ questions can be

understood easily. The feedback of the pilot study

was used to modify and enhance the clarity of the

instruments and to develop some aspects of the

interview questions and techniques. The substantive

fieldwork was conducted between January and June

2009. Data were collected through semi-structured

interviews and analysis of some documents. Sixteen

interviews were conducted with employees who

were involved with portal adoption and

implementation at five universities, three in Saudi

Arabia and two in the UK. These include: IT

managers, systems developers, IS designers and

webmasters. To respect the promise of anonymity,

the researchers cannot name the universities studied,

instead, they are referred here as A, B, C, D and E.

The average interview lasted for about 50 minutes.

The interviews were recorded, transcribed and

analysed individually. The raw data were analysed

using various qualitative data analysis techniques

such as coding and categorising, cross-interview

analysis and document analysis. This has resulted in

identifying a number of themes that were mentioned

by the participants. Table 1 illustrates the data

sources in this study.

Table 1: Data sources.

1. Semi-structured interviews

Uni Country No Role

A Saudi

Portal manager, IT

staff.

B Saudi

Project manager,

system developers

C Saudi

Project manager,

IS desi

ners.

D UK

IT manger, system

analysts

E UK

Portal manager, web

designer.

= 16

2. Documentation

Type of document

umbe

Portals policies and strategies. 4

Reports. 7

Official Presentations. 8

Articles and memos 5

Total 24

4 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This section reports the findings of the study which

are interpreted and discussed in the light of the

literature and related work. The results of our study

revealed that there are many challenges and barriers

that have been reported by the respondents, and they

are grouped into five main categories:

organisational-, technical-, user-, innovation-, and

finance- related challenges and barriers. Table 2

presents and compares the main challenges and

barriers associated with portal adoption. As can be

seen from the table, those seeking portal adoption in

both countries face barriers, and there are notable

similarities and differences between the two

countries. Overall, however, it could be said that

Saudi universities experience more challenges than

IDENTIFYING BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH CAMPUS PORTALS ADOPTION - A

Comparative Case Study of Saudi and UK Universities

197

their counterparts in the UK, especially with the

technical issues.

Table 2: Challenges and barriers associated with portal

adoption.

Challenges and Barriers

Saudi

Uni

U.K.

Uni

Organisational

Inadequate top management support × √

Lack of in-house expertise √ ×

Cooperation /coordination √ √

Change management √ √

Technical

Deficient IT infrastructure √ ×

Systems integration √ √

Low speed of network √ ×

Incompatibility √ ×

Lack of identity management systems √ √

Users

Resistance to change √ √

Technology acceptance √ √

Training √ ×

Users’ requirements √ √

Users’ expectations √ √

Innovation

Uncertainty of portal

technology

√ √

Conflict with other systems √ √

Content management √ √

Content ownership √ √

Financial

Funding × √

Lack of resources √ √

Running cost √ √

4.1 Organisational Barriers

According to the findings, many organisational

factors have been identified. These include

inadequate top management support, lack of in-

house expertise, cooperation and coordination and

change management.

4.1.1 Inadequate Top Management Support

Inadequate top management support was reported in

both of the UK cases. The participants reported that

top management have not seen the portal as priority

to the university, so that it is not on the agenda. A

project manager mentioned that “we did not get top

management support because the portal is not seen

yet as a priority to the university”. In contrast,

respondents from Saudi universities reported that

they had significant top management support,

represented by the chancellors chairing the portal

committees. One of the participants said that “the

most important one was the unlimited support from

the top management and especially from the

Chancellor. His direct involvement into the project

facilitated many things and barriers. The top

management played a key role through financial

support, incentives, encouragement and help”. From

this perspective it can be argued that inadequate

management commitment and support towards the

portal could have a negative effect on the portal

adoption. This agrees with the findings from other

studies on campus portals including Rahim,

Sugianto and Shameem (2005) and Rahim (2007).

4.1.2 Lack of In-house Expertise

Another issue reported was the lack of IT qualified

staff that are well trained and specialised in the

development of portal technologies. This applies

specifically to the Saudi cases. This issue was

explicitly mentioned by the respondents. For

example, one of the interviewees stated that “we do

not have enough manpower and qualified personnel

such as programmers, technical staff and other

knowledgeable people to develop the portal in-

house”. Another interviewee stated that “We suffered

from finding qualified people to work on the

project... As a result this has led us to buy ready

made solutions”. In a recent study, Altayar,

Fairweather and Mcbride (2010) reported that Saudi

universities tend to buy ready made solution portals.

This is because there is a shortage of skilful and

qualified people (internal expertise). In contrast, the

respondents in the UK did not mention such reasons

and they were confident about their IT skills and

internal expertise. A project manager stated that "we

are fortunate that the university has a lot of

technical expertise to develop the portal. We have

technical staff who involve with portal development

and they are very experience in portal applications".

In sum, one explanation of this difference between

Saudi and UK universities might be due to the fact

that the developing countries lag behind their

counterparts in the developed world in terms of

technology advancement, experience and skills, and

they do not have much in-house technical expertise.

Therefore, this could affect the decision on how the

technology is adopted.

4.1.3 Cooperation and Coordination

Another issue acknowledged by most of

interviewees in both countries was the lack of

INNOV 2010 - International Multi-Conference on Innovative Developments in ICT

198

cooperation and coordination between the portal

team and different campus constituents. Although

there was some kind of cooperation, it was of

limited scope. To many participants, co-operation

and coordination are considered to be a necessary

task for the success of the project, especially when it

comes to bringing content into the portal. This is

because of the nature of the portal technology, as it

is a cross-functional project and it touches all parties

in the campus, therefore, this requires the co-

operation of different campus constituents. In

addition, some participants mentioned that the lack

of co-operation and coordination was caused by the

absence of policies and strategies that address this

issue. One of the respondents from a Saudi

university mentioned that "we had some situations

where some departments and people in the

University were not fully willing to cooperate".

Another participant from a UK university reported

that "one of the most challenges that we faced was

the lack of co-operation and coordination within the

university. This due to the fact that some

departments and units in the university are not

aware of the benefits that the portal might bring

them and the absence of policies that address this

issue". It is interesting to observe such claims and

the findings suggest that co-operation and

coordination are crucial for portal adoption. In this

regard, Jafari and Sheehan (2003) stress the role and

importance of coordination between campus units

and departments, because campus portals bring

together campus constituents who seldom interact

with each other and whose interests are often

different.

4.1.4 Change Management

Another challenge identified that is related to the

organisations was change management. This issue

was mentioned as a crucial requirement for campus

portal adoption. To some participants, change

management is difficult to deal with in a university

environment, but it is not impossible. It requires the

investment in many resources such as establishing

strategies and policies, dedicated staff, money, time

and effort. A project manager at a Saudi University

described change in universities in the following

way: “change management is not an easy task,

especially when you talk about universities. In

general, universities do not like change and that

there are not much changes in universities, and this

is due to universities culture. Change comes very

slow in universities. Universities are frozen

organisations, that what I call them… and to change

something, it takes long time. Your model of

business does not change frequently”. These

findings suggest that the introduction of a campus

portal requires a comprehensive change management

strategy that addresses both the individual and the

organisational perspectives. According to Remus

(2007) change management is one of the most

important critical success factors for portal

implementation. He argues that the introduction of

enterprise portals can cause resistance, confusion,

redundancies, and errors. This is due to the fact that

portals provide a completely new work environment

based on new user interfaces, structuring content,

services and application in a very different manner.

4.2 Technical Barriers

The findings show that Saudi universities experience

more technical challenges and barriers than do their

counterparts in the UK.

4.2.1 Deficient IT Infrastructure

Deficient IT infrastructure was reported by many

participants as a main issue. One of the interviewees

mentioned that "I can say that the IT infrastructure

in the university wasn’t good when we developed the

portal. The network was weak and not very fast and

there was frequent downtime especially at peak

times". With respect to UK universities, IT

infrastructure was an important issue to them and

contributed positively to the portal development. A

portal manager pointed out that “I think the IT

infrastructure plays a key role in any organisation

when a new system is introduced. We were very

fortunate that we have a very good and very fast

internet connection and the network in the campus is

first class”. One reason that can explain the variation

around this issue might be the generally poorer

information infrastructure in the developing world

compared with the developed world. This finding

suggests that technical readiness is one of the most

important factors that needs to be considered when a

university contemplates a campus portal. In this

regard,

Eisler (2003) and Franklin (2004) emphasise

the importance of developing supporting

institutional information technology infrastructure

and architecture.

4.2.2 Systems Integration

Systems integration was one of the common

problems, recognised by most of the interviewees in

both countries. This agrees with the findings from

other studies, for example the study by Thomas

(2003) and Li and Wood (2005). A project manager

IDENTIFYING BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH CAMPUS PORTALS ADOPTION - A

Comparative Case Study of Saudi and UK Universities

199

at a UK university stated that “the systems that work

in the university have evolved over time separately,

so they have different standards and different data

models and exchange. It took us long time and a lot

of work to unify the data between various systems”.

A similar answer has been reported by a web

designer at a Saudi university when he said “we

were having different products and systems and at

the same time we were dealing with different

vendors. When we were planning to implement the

portal this was a critical issue: I mean the

integration”. This is not surprising given the fact

that systems and applications integration is a

common problem and could be found in many

organisations around the world. In addition, Li and

Wood (2005) point to the fact that portals are in their

infancy in terms of evolution and development and

there are still immature portal software products.

Thus, it is not surprising that organisations would

find integration to be problematic. Therefore,

particular attention should be devoted to this issue.

4.2.3 Lack of Identity and Access

Management Systems

Another issue reported by the participants was the

lack of identity and access management systems.

Users in the universities studied have different roles:

students, academics and staff. The nature of each

group is different from the other, therefore; it

requires different resources and services. The portal

services and resources are offered according to

users’ roles: whether as an academic, a student or a

member of staff. The aim of identity and access

management systems is to connect the right people

with the resources to which they are entitled in a

secure, controlled way. It involves the processes of

authentication, i.e. determining that a user is who he

or she claims to be, and authorisation, i.e.

determining what resources that user is allowed to

access (

Joint Information Systems Committee 2009).

According to the participants the absence of such

systems affects the portal management, especially in

terms of personalisation. As it is known, portals are

based on personalisation. In a University context

there are two issues to identity management. First,

knowing if the person has the right to see something,

and second, knowing if the person has the authority

to have administrative rights over something. A

project manager described this issue in the following

way. “we can currently develop content to be seen

by a student by year of study and department. It then

gets complicated to deliver content based on to joint

honours student role or if we want to relate their

involvement with a Union society or membership of

the sports centre. So as soon as we want to deliver

content or messages that are a little more complex /

subtle than simply 'first year politics students' for

example it isn't possible. So a message to all 'first

year politics students, in halls of residence and

members of the sports centre' is currently impossible

(or at least very hard to find)". It can be said that

having an effective University identity management

structure would allow universities to add extra

'granularity' in terms of developing content, showing

content and allowing other to edit that content.

4.3 Users Related Barriers

This addresses the challenges that are related to the

users. This includes: resistance to change,

technology acceptance, training, users’ requirements

and users’ expectations.

4.3.1 Resistance to Change

Resistance to change and accepting the new system

were human issues that the universities encountered

in both countries. It was described as the following

"resistant to change was a key human issue. We

have different people with different backgrounds,

ages, perceptions, attitudes and experience. We saw

some kind of resistance when we introduced the

system. This is because the system was new to users

who were not familiar with it, especially for those

with little knowledge in computer and ICTs

experience, so that you have to change hearts and

minds". Another participant from a UK university

described this issue as the following: "there is an

apathy, people would say I find information

somewhere else, so I don’t have really to use this,

why should I do this. I am a busy academic or a busy

member of staff and you got to tell why should I be

bothered". This issue should be taken into

consideration and responded to properly. According

to Sullivan (2004) resistance to change is probably

the single most difficult problem to overcome with

respect to portal adoption. In this regard and as we

claim early, the introduction of a campus portal

requires a comprehensive change management

strategy that addresses both the individual and the

organisational perspectives.

4.3.2 Training

Users' training and education was another challenge.

It was identified in the Saudi cases. In contrast,

participants from UK universities did not mention

this issue. According to the results, training has two

facets: training the people who are involved with

INNOV 2010 - International Multi-Conference on Innovative Developments in ICT

200

portal development and management such as service

owners or providers, and the second is the training

of end users. A webmaster stated that "we have a

large population of students, academics and staff

and to provide training for these people is a very

tough task. It took us a lot of time, cost us money

and effort and required many resources". Another

participant mentioned that "at the beginning of the

portal launch we had a problem that users were not

able to understand a little bit of how to log on and

how to use other services in the portal, so we had to

provide training.” One explanation of this difference

between the two countries might be due to the fact

that the relatively low level of information literacy

among users in the developing countries comparing

with their counterparts in the developed world.

However, this does not mean training is not

important. Many researchers have acknowledged the

importance of providing training on how to use

campus portals, for example (Zazelenchuk and

Boling 2003; Pearce 2003; Pearce, Carpenter and

Martin, 2003; Frazee, Frazee and Sharpe, 2003).

According to Remus (2007) since portals provide a

completely new user interface together with changed

or new processes, it is crucial to train potential users

or users who are less computer literate on how the

portal works and how the new functionality relates

to the ‘business processes’ of the university.

4.3.3 Users' Requirements

Collecting users' requirements and needs and

transferring these requirements and needs into

products and services was reported as a main

challenge. Users in the universities studied have

different roles: students, academics and staff. The

nature of each group is different from the other,

therefore; it requires different resources and

services. According to the findings, conducting

information to identify users' requirements and

needs requires many resources to be allocated such

as money, qualified people, time and effort. A

manager of systems development mentioned that

"the process of collecting data and information is a

tiring and exhausted processes as we had to collect

users requirements from more than 60 units and

departments around the campus". Another

participant mentioned that "collecting users

requirements was a difficult task for us especially

those that are related to analysing requirements,

prototyping designs and conducting usability test

and evaluations".

4.3.4 Users' Expectations

Another challenge identified was meeting users'

expectations. The use of the Internet and web-based

applications has become very popular among

students and academics. Consequently, they would

expect a similar environment and web-based tools

and applications being available for their use to

support learning and communication in their

universities. In addition, some participants reported

that campus portals are being compared with

commercial portals and some students and

academics have good experience, knowledge and

awareness about web portals such as Yahoo, Excite,

MSN, Amazon, and so forth. This has an impact on

their perceptions towards campus portals. They

compare their experience using these portals with

their campus portals. They like the features that web

portals provide such as excellent services and

interactive interfaces, usability, using rich media

such as videos, dynamic and interactive features,

high level of personalisation and customisation that

are based on their needs and preferences. According

to some participants, meeting such expectations with

limited resources of money and staff is very

challenging and there is an expectations gap. One of

the participants mentioned that "students and some

academics and staff are familiar with some Internet

applications like IGoogle and other advance

services on the web which I can describe as the

cutting edge technology in terms of interactivity,

capabilities, functionality and design. The question

that we expect: can you compete with that in a

university environment? We can’t do it with limited

resources with only two staff. We are not Google".

4.4 Innovation Related Barriers

This issue addresses the barriers that are related to

the innovation that is being adopted, which is portal

technology. It includes: uncertainty of portal

technology, conflict with other systems, content

management and content ownership.

4.4.1 Uncertainty of Portal Technology

The findings show that there is some degree of

uncertainty about the portal technology and its

benefits to the university and its members.

Consequently, this has led to another issue, that is

how will the portal interface with other systems such

as the university website, faculty web pages and, in

particular, departmental intranets. These issues were

common among most of the interviewees in both

countries. A project manager at a Saudi university

IDENTIFYING BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH CAMPUS PORTALS ADOPTION - A

Comparative Case Study of Saudi and UK Universities

201

mentioned that "the portal technology is a new

technology in universities, so that you have to learn

more about it… we had some situations where

people did not know what a portal is, what does it

mean? So we had to tell them, convince them about

its benefits and advantages". Another participant

commented on this issue when he said "we found

some departments and people who did not

understand the range of our work and didn’t realise

what we want to achieve or what the project is

about." From the UK side, a similar view was

reported. A portal manager mentioned that "when I

go to meetings, people ask me what to put on the

portal, we have a website, departmental intranets

and other web pages and most information and

services can be found in other systems… so what

new on the portal". This is an interesting finding and

it raises two crucial issues. First, it seems that some

campus constituents are not aware of the added

value that the portal can bring them such as the

personlisation, customisation, functionality,

interactivity and other unique features and

characteristics of portal technology. Second, it

suggests that there wasn’t strong internal

communication between the portal team and other

campus constituents. Ensuring strong

communication inwards and outwards is of

particular importance in the portal development and

it is considered to be one of the most important

critical success factors for portal implementations

(Remus 2007). Internal communication is a crucial

aspect to convey the message of the portal, its

objectives, scope and most importantly the added

value that it can bring to the university.

4.4.2 Content Management

With respect to managing the content, there are

several issues that have been reported such as

managing, supporting and updating content. For

example, providing a campus portal with two

languages (a bilingual portal) represents a key

challenge to universities, and this issue is found in

all Saudi cases studied. Saudi universities provide

campus portals in Arabic and English. This is

because The English language is the second most

widely used language in the country and some

universities teach some courses and modules in

English, therefore they provide students, academics

and support staff with services and information in

English. This requires many resources to be

allocated. For instance, qualified staff speaking two

languages, translation policies, standards and

strategies, tools and applications, money to pay for

personnel doing the job and updating the content on

a regular basis. These issues and others have been

explicitly mentioned by many participants in the

Saudi context at all universities. For example a

webmaster has described this issue as follows “we

provide our portal in two languages: Arabic and

English... Having English as a second language

requires resources, qualified people for translation,

mechanism and policies for the translation process.

…and this in its own is very challenging. All of these

cost us money, effort, time, resources ... etc. It will

remain problematic for us". In contrast, the issue of

providing a portal with two languages does not

apply to most UK universities because they provide

the portal in English only. To some extent, it can be

said that universities in general who provide a

campus portal with more than one language will find

it difficult to manage, support and handle the

content. This is a significant finding and it raises two

important issues. First, universities that provide a

portal with more than one language especially in

developing countries should address this issue and

pay particular attention to it from the outset of the

project. Secondly, effective mechanisms should be

put in place to address this issue. As the content

within the portal will grow over time, this issue

becomes more and more significant. This requires

the establishment of translation policies, standards

and strategies, tools and applications, qualified staff

speaking two languages, money, and resources.

4.4.3 Content Ownership

Another interesting issue raised by some of the

interviewees in both countries is the issue of who

owns and is responsible for data and information

when an institution adopts a portal? A participant at

a UK university expressed his view as the following:

“the portal brings stuff together, so it brings stuff

across organisational boundaries in the university

and that sometimes is complicated. Sometimes

people in your organisation think that you will take

some work and responsibility from them. Also, there

is the issue of who is responsible for the data when

you bring the data in one place? Who in charge of

it? Who manages it? Who owns it? It is a

controversial issue”. Another participant at a Saudi

university has mentioned a similar view and said

“the fact that the historical approach used in

developing IT in our university was a critical barrier

for us especially when it comes to put the content in

the portal. For example, the library system

developed their IT and content, the registry

department would look for their IT and content etc...

Then we had to deal with various issues like who has

the right over the content on the portal, who

INNOV 2010 - International Multi-Conference on Innovative Developments in ICT

202

manages it, who is responsible for it. It is a critical

issue”. It is interesting to observe such claims and in

order to ensure a successful portal project, and to

minimise tensions that may arise regarding data and

information ownership between organisational units

and members, all parties and constituents in the

university should be involved in portal adoption,

implementation, development and management. The

role of cooperation and coordination between all

parties and constituents in the university could be

very significant here. In this regard, Jafari and

Sheehan (2003) stress the role and importance of

coordination between campus units and departments,

because campus portals bring together campus

constituents who seldom interact with each other and

whose interests are often different. This is because

the nature of the portal is different from other

information technologies and systems. It is a cross-

functional project and it touches all parties in the

campus. This agrees with the view of Bunt and

Pennock (2006) who claim that “the fact that a portal

cuts across many sectors of the campus delivering

services and information that transcend

organisational boundaries, means that implementing

a portal raises important questions about jurisdiction,

responsibility and authority”. Therefore, a sensible

data and information strategy and policy should be

developed to address several issues such as data and

information ownership and content management. It

is a vital element in portal adoption and

implementation.

4.5 Financial Barriers

This is related to the financial aspects of portal

adoption. Many participants raised concerns about

the financial support given to portal development. In

the Saudi cases, the participants appreciated the

financial support that was provided from the outset

of the project. This is because top management

support in Saudi universities was a key enabler and

the direct involvement of chancellors had facilitated

many aspects of the project including funding and

resources. However, some participants expressed

concerns about the on-going cost, maintenance and

support in the long term. This because the portal

project is not a short term investment and it never

ends. This requires long investment of resources

such as money, staff and time. A systems developer

mentioned that "since we bought a ready made

solution, we had to sign a contract with the vendor

to do the maintenance and support and we have to

pay for this. If the funding stops, I do not know what

the situation will be”. Another participant pointed

out that "at the beginning of the project we got good

support including financial support, and it is going

so far. However, I believe that a project like the

portal is never ends, and if it succeeds and is

adopted by users, it will be something that needs

continuous financial support for the long run, for

example to cover the cost of maintenance,

upgrades". With respect to UK universities, getting

funding from the outset of the project was a major

concern. As reported earlier, top management have

not seen the portal as a priority to the university, so

that it is not on the agenda. This has an impact on

the resources allocated to the project. Lack of

resources was reported as a challenge for portal

development. It includes the lack of resources in

people, money and time. One of the participants

mentioned that "I have small grant budget for

promotion and I have the equivalent of 0.8 of a full

time member of staff working on the project".

Another interviewee reported that "there is really a

very small amount of resources being allocated to

the project…we have only three staff and they are

busy doing other things, we have a small amount of

money and time to spend". With the consequences of

the credit crunch, universities are facing cuts in their

budgets, and this could affect many projects. The

UK Government has announced that universities

will face about £400 million cuts from 2010.

(Stenvens, 2009).

5 A SYNTHESIS

OF THE FINDINGS

Figure 1 presents and synthesises the challenges and

barriers associated with campus portals adoption.

Based on the findings of this investigation and after

reviewing the literature, the researchers were able to

identify many barriers and challenges that may arise

as a result of campus portals adoption including:

organisational, technical, users, innovation, an

financial related challenges. The researchers believe

that most of these issues should be taken into

consideration and responded to properly when

universities contemplate a campus portal. Based on

our findings and in order to overcome such

challenges and barriers, we provide the following

recommendations. First, a strong business case must

be established from the outset of the project to drive

the portal agendas and to address all aspects related

to the project. Second, it is important that

universities have a clear and defined policy and

strategy for portal adoption and development. Third,

it is a good idea to start the project with the early

adopters, those people and other campus constituents

IDENTIFYING BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH CAMPUS PORTALS ADOPTION - A

Comparative Case Study of Saudi and UK Universities

203

Figure 1: A synthesis of the challenges and barriers associated with campus portal adoption.

who are keen on the project. In addition, internal

communication is a crucial aspect to convey the

message of the project and to convince service

owners to co-operate and coordinate in providing

and supporting the content. Furthermore, there

should be a lot of emphasis on the added value of the

portal to all campus constituents such as the

personlisation, customisation, functionality,

interactivity and other unique features and

characteristics of portal technology. What is more,

content ownership is a major issue in portal

adoption. Therefore, a sensible data and information

strategy and policy should be developed to address

several issues related to this matter. Finally, a

comprehensive change management strategy must

be established to overcome various issues such as

user acceptance, and resistance to change.

6 CONCLUSIONS

As with any research, this study is subject to a

number of limitations. First, the current study is

bounded and situated in a specific context: the

academic context. Therefore, it would be interesting

to study other contexts and sectors. Second, this

research is restricted to two countries and cultures:

the UK and Saudi Arabia. It can be said that the

nature of case study research is not intended to

provide results that can be generalised, rather it aims

to explore a particular issue in a given situation.

Thus, it would be interesting to study other

countries. This paper has provided an insight into the

barriers and challenges associated with campus

portal adoption. Many conclusions can be drawn

from the analysed data. First, the main challenges

and barriers that have been identified are:

organisational- technical-, user-, innovation-, and

finance- related challenges and barriers. In addition,

Saudi universities experience more challenges than

their counterparts in the UK, especially with the

technical issues. Furthermore, there are some

similarities and differences between the two

countries.

REFERENCES

Altayar, M., Fairweather, N and McBride, N.,2010. An

investigation into the adoption of campus portals in

Saudi and UK universities. In: The 6th International

anisational

Inadequate top management

support

Lack of in-house expertise

Cooperation and coordination

Change management

Technical

Deficient IT infrastructure

Systems integration

Low speed of network

Incompatibility

Lack of identity management

systems

Innovation

Uncertainty of Portal technology

Conflict with other systems

Content management

Content ownership

Financial

Funding

Lack of resources

Running and maintenance cost

Users

Resistance to change

Technology acceptance

Training

Users’ requirements

Users’ expectations

Challenges and Barriers

Associated with Campus

portals Adoption

INNOV 2010 - International Multi-Conference on Innovative Developments in ICT

204

Conference on Web Information Systems and

Technologies (WEBIST), Spain, Valencia.

Bolton, S., 2008. Web redevelopment project: higher

education sector research report on institutional

portals. Retrieved December 13, 2009 from

http://www.york.ac.uk

Bouwman, H., Hooff, B., Wijngaer, L & Dijk, J., 2005.

Information and communication technology in

organisations, Sage. London.

Bryman, A., 2008. Social research method, Oxford

University Press. Oxford, 3rd edition.

Bunt, R., Pennock, L., 2006. Of portals, policies and poets.

Educause Quarterly ,(2). pp 41-47.

Creswell, J., 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research

design: choosing among five traditions, Sage.

Thousand Oaks, 2

edition.

Detlor, B., 2000. The corporate portal as information

infrastructure: towards a framework of portal design.

International Journal of Information Management,

(20), 91—101.

Eisler, C., 2003. Campus portal strategies. In Jafari, A. and

Sheehan, M. (Eds), Designing portals opportunities

and challenges (pp. 68-88), IRM Press. Hershey.

Franklin, T., 2004. Portals in higher education: concepts

and models. Retrieved February 11, 2010, from

http://www.obhe.ac.uk/

Frazee, J., Frazee, R., Sharpe, D., 2003. Begin with the

end user in mind: planning for the San Diego State

University campus portal. In Jafari, A. And Sheehan,

M. (Eds), Designing portals opportunities and

challenges (pp. 127-161), IRM Press. Hershey.

Fuangvut, T., 2005. Campus portal: a framework for

development accommodating end-users' online

activities. PhD thesis, University of Wollongong.

Hantrais, L. 1996. Comparative research methods. Social

Research Update, Retrieved March 7, 2010, from,

http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU13.html

Hunter, G., 2004. Qualitative research in information

systems: an exploration of methods. In Whitman, M.

and Woszczynski, A. (Eds), The handbook of

information systems research, Idea Group. Hershey.

Jafari, A., and Sheehan, M., 2003. Designing portals

opportunities and challenges, Idea Group. Hershey.

Li, S., Wood, W., 2005. Portals in the academic world: are

they meeting expectations. The Journal of Computer

Information Systems, 45 (4), 50—55.

Pearce, L., 2003. Institutional portals. .Retrieved February

4, 2010, from http://www.fair-portal.hull.ac.uk.

Pearce, L., Carpenter, L., Martin, R., 2003. Stakeholder

requirements for institutional portals. Retrieved

January 4, 2010, from http://www.fair-

portal.hull.ac.uk.

Rahim, M., 2007. Identifying barriers to using Business-

to-Employee (B2E) portals. In Proceedings of the 40th

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Rahim, M., Sugianto, L., Shameem, N., 2005.

Understanding the adoption of business to employee

(B2E) portals. University. In Fifth International

Conference on Electronic Business, Hong Kong.

Remus, U., 2007. Critical success factors for

implementing enterprise portals. Business Process

Management Journal, 13, (4), 538-552.

Shilakes, C., Tylman, J., 1998. Enterprise information

portals, Merrill Lynch Inc. New York.

Smith, M., 2004. Portals: toward an application

framework for interoperability. Communication of the

ACM, 47, (10), 93—97.

Stevens, R., 2009. Britain: government announces £400

million education cuts for new year 2010, Retrieved

February 11, 2010, from http://www.wsws.org/

articles/ 2010/jan2010/univ-j05.shtml

Sullivan, D., 2004. Proven Portals: best practices for

planning, designing and developing enterprise portals,

Addison Wesley. Boston.

Thomas, J., 2003. Indiana university’s enterprise portal as

a service delivery framework. In Jafari, A. and

Sheehan, M. (Eds), Designing portals opportunities

and challenges (pp. 102-126), IRM Press. Hershey.

Zazelenchuk, T., Boling, E., 2003. Considering user

satisfaction in designing web-based portals. Educase

Quarterly, (1), 35—40.

IDENTIFYING BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH CAMPUS PORTALS ADOPTION - A

Comparative Case Study of Saudi and UK Universities

205