Industry-oriented Education in eHealth

Janne Lahtiranta

and Anne-Maarit Majanoja

Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

Department of Information Technology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

Keywords: Industry-Oriented Education, eHealth, Health Care Information Systems, Health Care Technologies.

Abstract: Technology, or more specifically digitalization, has had a profound effect on industry regardless of the field

of business. It has changed the way individuals interact, work and go about their everyday businesses. This,

still ongoing change, calls for new kind of professionals who can meet the challenges placed by the changing

industry. Health care is one of the areas where digitalization has the most profound effect. It does not only

change the way people work, but it also changes the underlying balance of power between different actors.

The domain is also an inherently hybrid one as the professionals need to understand what is in the crux of

technology and care, between the patient and the professional. In the following, a pilot focused on educating

professionals in the field of eHealth in industry-oriented fashion is described focusing on the process and

people; stages leading to actual lectures. The result of the examination is a process that can be used in

developing industry-oriented education in a domain where expectations are currently high around the globe,

and challenges placed on the educators are in a constant flux.

1 INTRODUCTION

Advanced digitalization, the ongoing industrial

paradigm shift (Lasi et al., 2014) is changing the

world in new and often unanticipated ways. It

changes our behavior, the ways we interact with each

other - how we learn and how we teach - and it even

has an impact on the fundamental notion of what

means to be a human.

Digitalization has already created benefits for

many, and it will continue to do so in the upcoming

years. However, even if it may seem so, digitalization

is not axiomatic nor can be taken for granted; talented

people are needed to see the ongoing shift to come

through.

Universities, especially Humboldtian science

universities, are often blamed for stagnation. They are

regarded as slow to react to the economic

developments in the surrounding worlds (Fathi and

Wilson, 2009; Lozano et al., 2013), and establishing

new courses and degree programs often takes years

(Gerson, 2015). To counter these arguments, and to

develop a sustainable and networked approach for

industry-oriented education, a project called

“Working Life Oriented Open University Education”

was established. In the project, polytechnics,

universities, and industrial partners collaborated in

three distinct fields of 1) health and social services, 2)

bio-based economy, and 3) Information and

Communication Technologies (ICT).

The project, funded by the European Social Fund

(2015-2018) consisted of three pilots, one in each of

the three fields. The pilots were stand-alone pilots. In

other words, they were implemented autonomously in

order to take the distinct characteristics of each field

into account, and to create different practices to be

investigated by an external evaluator later on in the

project. Each pilot was charged with specific tasks of

a) developing a method for industry-oriented

education, and b) testing the method in practice.

In the pilots, the development took the form of

“inspect and adapt” cycles and in concurrent

implementations with a specific focus (Figure 1), in

the spirit of Agile approach (Cohn, 2005). Due to the

differences in the fields, and autonomy of the pilots,

the length and amount of cycles was not predefined

or limited. In some pilots, the most practical solution

was to emphasize the dialogue with the organizations,

focus on business priorities, and to implement a single

cycle in which the defined method was tested.

Lahtiranta, J. and Majanoja, A.

Industry-oriented Education in eHealth.

DOI: 10.5220/0006651504110419

In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2018), pages 411-419

ISBN: 978-989-758-291-2

411

Figure 1: Overall project and pilots.

In the following, the focus is on the ICT pilot (Figure

1, stand-alone pilot 3), and more specifically on one

of its implementations that was carried out during the

first half of the 2016 in the field of health and

wellbeing technologies (eHealth). In the following,

this implementation is referred as the eHealth pilot.

The examination focuses on the process and the

experiences – the way or organizing education in an

industry-oriented fashion. It follows from this that the

end-user experiences, such as statistical analysis of

the student feedback, is omitted from the findings.

2 eHEALTH PILOT

Health care is one of the fields most influences by

digitalization. It does not only change the way of

working in the field, but it also has a tremendous

impact on how responsibilities and duties, even

power, is delegated in the field (Koskinen and

Knaapi-Junnila, 2014; Lahtiranta et al., 2015).

eHealth is also one of the most promising fields in

terms of business growth in Finland. While other

fields have been in decline during the last years,

eHealth has been on the increase. For example, in

2014 health technology export grew to €1.8 billion

with a surplus of €829 million (Kauppalehti, 2015).

By the end of 2014, eHealth alone covered more than

half of the overall high technology export in Finland,

more than telecommunications which has been a

strong field in Finland for a long time (Kauppalehti,

2015).

eHealth is not a new field or a sudden ‘booming

star’ in Finland. The field has been on the rise for the

last eight years and there is no indication that the

situation will change in the near future. One indicator

of this is a survey conducted in the late 2015 amongst

health technology companies in Finland by the

Finnish Health Technology Association (FiHTA) and

Saranen Consulting. According to the survey,

majority of the companies working in the field were

to hire new personnel in 2016 (Saranen Consulting,

2015).

Another indicator of relevance is the changing

health care infrastructure in Finland. At the moment

there are four major health care digitalization projects

in Finland. In two of them, focus on implementing a

new Electronic Health Record (EHR). First one of the

EHR projects, Apotti, focuses on the public health

service providers operating in the metropolitan area

(i.e. greater Capital Region). Apotti is currently in the

early stages of implementation and in early May,

2016 the project recruited approximately 150 health

technology professionals. The latter EHR project,

Una, focuses on providers operating outside the

metropolitan area. The project is currently

(September, 2017) in the early stages of

implementation and it is estimated that the acquisition

of the core components will begin in the fall 2017.

The remaining two health care digitalization

projects, Virtual Hospital and Digital Self-care

Services (ODA), focus on implementing new

electronic services, such as virtual clinics (cd. Krausz,

et al., 2016) in basic health care (ODA), and in

specialized health care (Virtual Hospital). While the

actual costs associated with the projects is still

unclear, it is estimated that the costs of the EHR

projects alone will be in the neighborhood of €1

billion (Helsingin Sanomat, 2015) of which Apotti

alone will cover €575 million (over the timeframe of

10 years) (Apotti, 2017).

The ongoing development in the field has created

an acute demand for technology professionals who

possess a) a domain-specific skill-set from the field

of ICT, and b) at least basic understanding on how the

field of health care operates. In order to understand

what these skills are, and what kind of ‘hybrid

professionals’ the field needs, the first

implementation of the ICT pilot focused on eHealth.

Digitalization does not only create new

opportunities to the field of health care, but to the

field of education as well, as different digital devices,

modalities, and ways of reaching students have

become available (cf. Gárcia-Peñalvo et al., 2014).

However, new tools and ‘gadgets’ alone do not

inspire learning; it is important to focus on the content

and incorporate real-life elements into education. One

well-employed approach is to combine online courses

(El-Bishouty et al., 2014), and mix the course

contents with the challenges emerging in the domain

of application. In this, a constant dialogue with the

domain-experts from the industry-side is of the

essence.

CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

412

2.1 The Framework

On the level of the overall project, the work was

organized in stand-alone pilots focusing on a specific

field. Within the pilot focusing on the field of ICT,

the work was further organized as “inspect and adapt”

cycles and concurrent implementations with a more

refined focus (Figure 1). In the ICT pilot, one of the

implementations focusing on eHealth (i.e. the eHealth

pilot) organized the work even further by employing

a more specific methodological framework.

The employed framework based on the works of

Stewart and Hyysalo (2008), and previous work by

Stewart (2000) on the roles of cybercafés in the

1990s. Their work on intermediary roles in the

development and appropriation of new technologies,

defines intermediaries as individuals who a) facilitate

user innovation, and b) link user innovation into

supply side activities, such as marketing, branding or

product development (Stewart and Hyysalo, 2008).

Using a more down-to-earth, or even a bland

definition, intermediaries can be seen as ‘go-

betweens’; individuals who bring different people

together, and help them in appropriation and

generation of new technologies (or related

innovations). As such, intermediary is not a fixed

concept or a profession, and there are different

intermediaries in different fields of business, and their

alignment in the supply-use axis may wary

(Lahtiranta, 2014.).

The three-tiered framework used by Stewart and

Hyysalo (2008) to categorize primary roles of

intermediaries, consists of the following: 1)

facilitating, 2) configuring, and 3) brokering. In their

framework, facilitating represents providing

opportunities to other, and as such it covers aspects

such as education, setting rules, influencing

regulations, and gathering and distributing resources.

(Stewart and Hyysalo, 2008)

Configuring does not only represent technology-

related configuring (actually technical aspect of

configuring is often present only in a minor way), but

also creation of space that facilitates appropriation.

Configuring also represents influencing individual’s

perceptions and goals (Stewart and Hyysalo, 2008).

A cybercafé is a prime example of configuring; the

space (café) existed before function, and the clientele

brought in their own ideas on how and for what it is

used (Stewart, 2000).

Brokering, as the name suggests, refers to

negotiating on the behalf of represented organizations

and individuals, for example when features of a new

product are discussed. Brokering is one of the most

direct ways of interacting within the framework, as

the intermediaries are often involved with direct

negotiations with different parties, such as sponsors,

suppliers or end-users. (Stewart and Hyysalo, 2008)

2.2 The Framework and the eHealth

Pilot

In the eHealth pilot, the three-tiered framework was

used in a) outlining the needed skill-set, b) organizing

the lectures, and c) setting up the platform used in

education. As such, the role of the intermediary

(Stewart and Hyysalo, 2008) became intertwined with

the concept of a product owner; a key stakeholder in

project implemented in according to the Agile

approach (Cohn, 2005).

Definition of the skill-set, and gaining

understanding on what kind of professionals are

needed in the field, was done personally – brokered

by a domain-specialist. Instead of formal

questionnaires, public seminars or workshops,

representatives working in the organizations were

met face-to-face (when possible). These meetings

were flexible and informal, there was no written

agenda or minutes, and they were organized on the

terms of the representatives (time and place).

The free-spirited meetings gave room for

exploring additional topics in addition to the skill-set

and the expert profile. These included ongoing

projects, potential avenues for future collaboration,

and the organizations themselves. It followed from

this that the meetings were also about facilitating and

brokering, linking organizations together, and not just

about the project.

In relation to the goals of the eHealth pilot, the

primary result of these 18 meetings was a collection

of topics the organizations considered to be of the

relevance in the field (Figure 2).

The topics covered the field of eHealth in a wide

scale. While some of the topics were extremely

specific, related to a single technology or standard,

others were vaguer by nature, reflecting concerns of

the potential employers.

Example: “We have this problem that is not really

related to technology. When a person starts working

in the company, he or she is rather young, typically in

late twenties. Most of them have never been seriously

ill, neither have their parents. A consequence of this

is that they [new employees] do not know how the

field [of health care] works, or how it is organized.

They can’t separate a health center from a university

hospital.” [Lahtiranta, personal communication,

translated]

The topics were also prioritized using a simple

and straightforward method; if the organizations

Industry-oriented Education in eHealth

413

Figure 2: Topics (a sample).

specifically pointed out that certain topic is of the

essence for their business, or if a topic was repeatedly

mentioned in other meetings, it was considered to be

of the essence (indicated by circles in the Figure 2).

Altogether 55 topics of different degrees of

specificity were found out. In order to analyze the

topics in a more detail, they were grouped using the

following categories: a) standards; integration and

interoperability, b) new and emerging services in the

domain, c) technologies and trends related to the

domain, and d) domain-specific themes outside ICT.

Individual topics were distributed according to the

following table (Table 1).

Table 1: Categories and topics.

Category

Distribution

Standards; integration and interoperability

New and emerging services in the domain

Technologies and trends related to the

domain

Domain-specific themes, outside ICT

Total

In the next phase, the topics were re-grouped into

more concrete groups on the basis of their thematic

and contextual similarities (if there was any). For

example, certain European Union directives

(93/42/EEC, 90/385/EEC and 98/79/EC) formed a

group related to validation and verification. In the

case of messaging, certain standards (ASTM E 1394-

97 and HL7 ver. 2.x) formed a group of their own due

to the similarities in structure and function. These

groups were called thematic groups.

On a more abstract level, thematic groups took the

shape of two distinct collections; introductory and

advanced. The topics that were regarded as

introductory were related to the nature and

organization of health care and social services (e.g.

legislation, funding, etc.). The remaining topics, the

advanced ones, were related to a specific function or

standard, such as the Cross Enterprise Document

Sharing (XDS) standards (Table 2).

As the Table 2 indicates, thematic groups formed

the backbone for the actual lectures. Content and

learning outcomes were defined for each of the

formed group on the basis of literature, domain

knowledge, and earlier discussions with the

companies. In addition, thematic ‘arcs’ were

discussed; how the themes are linked with each other,

what is the actual scope, and how much the themes

overlap (for example, in the case of legislation and

EU directives).

Table 2: Thematic groups (a sample).

Thematic

Group

Content Description

Learning Outcomes

Coding,

classification

and

ontologies

Coding, classification

and ontologies have a

long history in the field

of health care. They

are essential part of

service provisioning

today, and they are

embedded into most

communication

standards in the field.

During the lecture(s), an

introduction to

ontologies is provided,

and some of the most

common coding and

classification systems

(such as SNOMED CT

and ICD-10) are briefly

introduced.

CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

414

Table 2: Thematic groups (a sample) (cont.).

Thematic

Group

Content Description

Learning Outcomes

Messaging

In the health care

domain, information is

commonly exchanged

in (asynchronous)

messages. Some of

these messages base

on “legacy standards”

were developed in the

1990s but are still in

use.

Starting with ASTM E

1394-97, continuing to

HL7 2.x messaging, and

later on to the up-to-date

HL7 v3 messaging, the

lecture(s) outline the

used standards and

provides practical

examples on their use.

Profiles and

functional

models

Profiles and functional

models provide a

summary of

envisioned functions

for specific information

systems, such as

EHR. Furthermore,

profiles (such as IHE

integration profiles)

define conformance

criteria for such

systems.

The lecture(s) depict the

most relevant functional

models today (such as

PHR-S and EHR-S), and

(localized) integration

profiles used in the field.

In addition the lecture

provides a cursory

glance to IHE Scheduled

Workflow (SWF), and an

introduction to IHE

organization (focusing

on the national special

interest group).

There were no funds reserved for outsourced services,

such as marketing or lectures, in the eHealth pilot.

One consequence of this was that the lecturers had to

be recruited from the industry, domain organizations,

standards development organizations, universities,

and government. All in all, 49 different organizations

were contacted.

As the language of the lectures was English, it was

possible to recruit lecturers internationally. The

recruitment process was also used for collecting

feedback on the original topics, thematic groups, and

on the planned ‘arcs’. As such, the process itself

formed a reflective inspect-and-adapt cycle of its

own, executed in the spirit of Agile development

(Cohn, 2005).

The recruitment process further defined the

thematic groups into actual lectures. While the

original topics (Figure 2) were considered as an

accurate representation of the industry, and needs of

the organizations, the availability and expertise of the

lecturers defined the final content and amount of

lectures (per thematic group). For example, in

addition to giving a generic lecture on trends related

to the field, the lecturers insisted on delving deeper

into specific trends, such as corporate wellness; a

trend that was considered to be of particular

importance.

As the lectures were held in English, and the

recruitment for lecturers was global, the most

practical way of offering lectures was online. Some

of the lectures were webinars with a live audience and

lecturer, while others were recordings made

particularly for the project. The lectures were

recorded using Adobe Connect web conferencing

software service, and they were offered via open-

source learning platform and course management

system known as Moodle.

Employing the taxonomies of the used

methodological framework (Stewart and Hyysalo,

2008), these two (Adobe Connect and Moodle) were

the technical parts of the ‘space’ that was configured

for the purposes of the eHealth pilot, and used for

facilitating expertise and knowledge on eHealth.

In order to summarize the process from definition

to implementation, or from collecting topics to giving

actual lectures, there were 5 steps (Figure 3). First, the

topics were collected in free-form meetings with 1-2

representatives from organizations operating in the

field of eHealth. These included companies,

standards development organizations, universities

and research organizations, and government. The

meetings were held face-to-face when possible. The

collected topics were prioritized and grouped into

thematic groups; assemblages of topics that had

similarities, or were close to each other (context-

wise).

The thematic groups formed the backbone for the

actual lectures, and they were used in recruitment. At

that time, the groups were also subjected for feedback

from potential lectures. The actual lectures were

formed on the basis of the thematic groups and

lecturers’ feedback; their expertise and interests.

Figure 3: Steps 1-5; from definition to implementation.

Industry-oriented Education in eHealth

415

Finally, the lectures were provided via an electronic

teaching platform, or the ‘space’.

Even though the process is depicted as a linear one

in the figure 3, certain steps were repeated. For

example, the composition of thematic groups changed

during the recruitment process, resulting in

regrouping.

The figure 3 can also be used in depicting how

different intermediary roles were aligned during the

overall process. While the content was brokered by a

domain-specialist (steps 1-3) the practical

arrangements (steps 4-5) were primarily – if not

always solely – brokered and configured by the

academic officers. In the following, the challenges

related to the work of the academic officers are

discussed in more detail.

2.3 Practical Arrangement of the

Lectures

Organizing a novel course; especially on a new

domain with tight coupling to industry can be quite

demanding for academic officers working in the Open

University. The practicalities require a lot of

planning, scheduling, brokering, and marketing;

significantly more than in the case of a more typical

or ‘academic’ course.

The lectures and the related materials (handouts,

assignments, etc.) were agreed directly with the

lecturers. During the course of the arranging these

practicalities, it was discovered that sometimes the

language used in the course was a challenge for some

of the lecturers as they were not used to giving

lectures in English. This was considered as too

demanding for some, and in few cases the lecturers

lost their interest.

Another motivational aspect was the

compensation. Some of the lectures refused due to the

small compensations. As discussed earlier, the

eHealth pilot did not have any funding to cover the

lecturing costs. One of the findings of the eHealth

pilot is that investments are needed if experienced

industry specialists are planned to be incorporated

into the education.

Organizing the actual lectures with the potential

lecturers caused some challenges to the Open

University’s academic officers; the lecturers asked

for detailed instructions, for example on the domain-

specific technical aspects of their topic.

Understandably, the officers were not able to answer

to these kinds of questions as they did not possess

sufficient technical know-how on the domain.

It was also identified as a challenge for the Open

University’s academic officers to contact the industry

specialists as they did not have the needed network or

shared the same “language” with them. The academic

officers felt it was quite demanding to call to the

potential lectures and discuss about the practicalities

in-depth.

During the eHealth pilot, four types of challenges

were identified from the perspective of the academic

officers. 1) Scheduling of the lecturers (brokering).

Sometimes it was a challenge to reach lecturers from

the industry-side in order to arrange the schedule of

the lectures. Commonly, the lecturers answered after

the schedule was set. Naturally, this caused changes

to the course setup and structure –eventually, the

effects were evident to the students as well.

As an example, some of the lectures were

originally planned to be available online prior to

assignments, and it was intended that the assignments

base on the contribution. However, the lectures and

the assignments were “out of sync” and this caused

fundamental problems to the organizers, and to the

students.

2) Scheduling of the academic officers

(facilitating). Some of the scheduling problems

originated from the officers, which were a direct

consequence of the somewhat “stop-go” nature of the

course. Planning and practical arrangements (figure

3, steps 4-5) required significantly more time than

was originally estimated – even a partial restructuring

of the timetable required whole working days from

the academic officers. The officers were not solely

assigned to the course, and they had other duties to

attend to.

3) Setting up the online course (configuring). The

original idea was to organize the course as a series of

online lectures, or webinars, into which everyone

interested could attend to. The focus group was not

limited as the course was intended as a low-threshold

introduction to the field, and to the relevant actors

(organizations, companies, researchers, etc.).

However, due to the practical challenges and

problems in scheduling, a decision was made to

implement (to ‘reconfigure’) the course as an online

course with limited access in the Moodle learning

environment. Even though the course was organized

as a closed one (for example, in contrast to a MOOC,

c.f. Baggaley, 2013), the course was successful in

facilitating; in bringing together students from health

care and from the technology side.

4) Student recruitment (brokering). This eHealth-

focused course was a new addition to the course

curricula of the Open University. As such, it needed

new marketing approach. It was not enough just to

add the course to the list of available ones. At first,

the course was marketed using traditional methods,

CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

416

such as via university’s web pages and email

distribution lists. Soon it was realized that in order to

reach the intended audience, potential students

interested in operating in a field that is a mix of

technology and health care, social media channels

had to be utilized as well. In this LinkedIn, Facebook

and Twitter were used as primary channels. In

addition, an interview that focused on the overall

project was published in one of the Finland’s leading

newspapers. This was a real boost in terms of

marketing.

Despite of the practical challenges described

above, the course was successfully carried-out with a

very strong industry connection.

3 RECOMMENDATIONS

Looking back to the eHealth pilot, more precisely into

the 5 steps depicted in the figure 3, the following

recommendations can be made. The

recommendations are not intended as domain or

project specific, and as such they can be applied to the

field of industry-oriented education as a whole.

Use a domain expert as an intermediary (Step 1).

Regardless of the domain, planning industry-oriented

education requires understanding about the industry.

Without a solid understanding about the domain in

question, eliciting information from different sources

(stakeholders, literature, media, etc.) is a challenge.

The domain in itself; its processes, terminology,

hierarchy, etc. may pose a challenge for the

uninitiated. More so if the domain is a hybrid one, as

it is in the case of eHealth. In the case of eHealth,

domain understanding is not just about technology.

Depending on the emphasis, it is also about health

care, social services, and wellbeing.

Domain expertise is related to another important

requirement; networks. Without them, there is a risk

that a certain stakeholder group will go unnoticed, of

its views are not appropriately incorporated in the

planning. For example, in the field of eHealth,

different standards development organizations, such

as the HL7, are of particular importance.

Prefer face-to-face meetings (Step 1). Personal

touch matters. In the eHealth pilot, the representatives

of different organizations appreciated doing things

‘on their terms’ (time, place, etc.). A direct result of

this way of working was a more laid-back

atmosphere, and a possibility to act as an

intermediary. In other words, to bring issues on the

table that would have been otherwise ignored, or left

outside the official agenda.

Meeting face-to-face was also a matter of

efficiency. Instead of communication via email or

phone, in personal meetings it was easier to control

the flow of the meetings; to ensure that everyone was

engaged and participated, and contributed to the

eHealth pilot.

Prioritize! (Step 2). Collecting singular themes

was not enough in the eHealth pilot; they needed

further work and thinning out. Prioritization of the

individual themes on the basis of the corporate needs

was the first step in the right direction. A simple

method that based on the number of occurrences a

theme was brought up, combined with emphasis

brought up in the meetings, was enough.

However, in an afterthought this analysis could

have been strengthened by analyzing future trends

provided by organizations such as Gartner or Forbes

(cf. Forbes, 2017). This kind of analysis would have

given more to the organizations, and even challenged

them to reconsider their current position and future

avenues in the field. The analysis could have even

helped in brokering (Stewart and Hyysalo, 2008), if a

common ground had been found in the fields of

expertise and interest.

Sharpen up and clarify (Step 3). As the process of

planning industry-oriented education moves towards

more practical issues, such as organizing lectures,

structuring content into manageable content is of the

essence. More so, if the lectures are provided by more

than a one person, or with external professionals. In

this, defining content, learning outcomes, and

creating thematic arcs that linked themes together was

a valuable tool in the eHealth pilot.

I&A (Step 4). Inspect and adapt. Reflecting the

current state of the project and comparing the results

on the goals is a basic practice employed in most

project management paradigms. Instead of

performing analysis retrospectively after the project,

iterative and incremental inspect and adapt cycles

were performed during the eHealth pilot in the spirit

of Agile approach (Cohn, 2005).

Each meeting with a company provided a point of

reflection on the themes gathered until that point. The

most natural point of reflection where the ‘whole’

(i.e. thematic groups) could be evaluated for the first

time instead of the ‘parts’ (individual themes) was

during the recruitment. At that point, the actual

lectures, and the emphasis of the whole education,

started to take shape.

Resource adequately (Step 4). Another

recommendation that originates from the generic

project management paradigms is related to adequate

resourcing. There was a single step in the eHealth

pilot during which the resourcing was found

Industry-oriented Education in eHealth

417

insufficient; recruiting. Professional lecturers rarely

come cheaply, or for free, especially if the topic of the

lecture is a current one.

In the eHealth pilot, the whole field is a current

one, especially in Finland, and certain themes even

more so (such as the Fast Healthcare Interoperability

Resource, or FHIR). The lack of resources made

recruiting potential lecturers a challenge.

Another aspect, related to resources and

recruiting, which had an impact on the content of the

lectures was the HL7 membership. Even though the

national organization collaborated and contributed,

the international HL7 organization was

understandably reluctant to contribute as the

organization responsible for the education was not a

member at that time.

Advocate (Step 5). Another old best practice

originating from project management is advocating.

A well-managed project needs a ‘champion’ (Cash.

and Fox, 1992); an unfeigned and authoritative

character who carries the weight of the project. In the

eHealth pilot, this practice should have been put into

a proper use as the project stumbled at a critical point,

during the handover from planning the course to

making the webinars and recordings.

Revalidate (overall process). Industry-oriented

education needs periodic revalidation (unless it is

intended as non-recurring education). More so of the

domain is a rapidly evolving one, as in the case of

eHealth. During the eHealth pilot two basic types of

revalidation were discussed: 1) a calendar-based

revalidation, and 2) a trigger-based revalidation.

A calendar-based revalidation could occur yearly

or bi-yearly depending on the field. During the

process, the education as a whole could be put under

scrutiny. Depending on the implementation of the

education, this could be done at the same time when

the practicalities are organized (time, place, lectures,

etc.), or within a specific frame of time.

A trigger-based revalidation was seen as a more

narrow process. Instead of looking into education as

a whole, single topics or thematic groups could be put

under scrutiny. The trigger, a real-world event, could

be a release of a new standard, law or directive, or

announcement of a project in need of a specific

expertise (such as the Apotti (2017) project discussed

earlier).

While these mechanisms were never put into

actual use due to the nature of the ICT pilot (figure 1),

they were considered as mechanisms that could be

used in maintaining the original connection with the

industry.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Industry-oriented education is a ‘different animal’

when compared to the education Humboldtian

science universities commonly offer. Unlike courses

like ‘discrete mathematics’, where the underlying

paradigms may remain the same for decades,

industry-oriented education may change with every

course iteration.

This difference does not make offering industry-

oriented education impossibility for the science

universities; it just needs a different mind-set and

different practices. Such as the one’s discussed

earlier. As the competition among universities has

become intense and international, and the demand for

research funding has increased globally, industry-

oriented education should be regarded as an opening

and an opportunity for closer cooperation with the

industry. In this, the intermediary roles (Stewart and

Hyysalo, 2008; Lahtiranta, 2014) can be of the

essence.

Understanding a) how universities align on the

supply-use axis from the perspective of the industry,

b) what the expected skill-set and the profile of a

specific domain expert are, and c) how intermediary

roles can be used in interaction with the industry are

steps in the right direction on a grander scheme of

things that is the balance between education and

industry demand.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The project called “Working Life Oriented Open

University Education (2015-2018) on which the

paper bases on was funded by the European Social

Fund.

REFERENCES

Apotti. 2017. Apotti: usein kysytyt kysymykset, URL=

http:// www.apotti.fi/usein-kysytyt-kysymykset/

(Accessed: 4.10.2017).

Baggaley, J. 2013. MOOC Rampant. Distance Education.

34, 3, pp. 368-378.

Cash, C. and Fox, R 1992. Elements of Successful Project

Management. Journal of Systems Management. 43, 9

(Sep 1992), pp. 10-12.

Cohn, M. 2005. Agile Estimating and Planning. Prentice

Hall, New Jersey, U.S.

El-Bishouty, M. M., Chang, T.-W., Graf, S., and Chen, N.-

S. 2014. Smart e-course recommender based on

CSEDU 2018 - 10th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

418

learning styles. Journal of Computers in Education, 1,

99–111.

Fathi, M. and Wilson, L. 2009. Strategic planning in

colleges and universities. The Business Renaissance

Quarterly: Enhancing the Quality of Life at Work.

Spring 2009, 91-103

Forbes. 2017. Top Five Digital Transformation Trends In

Health Care URL=

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnewman/2017/03/

07/top-five-digital-transformation-trends-in-

healthcare/ (Accessed: 4.10.2017).

García-Peñalvo, F. J., Cruz-Benito, J., Griffiths, D.,

Sharples, P., Willson, S., Johnson, M., Papadopoulos,

G., Achilleos, A., Alier, M., Galanis, N., Conde, M.Á.,

Pessot, E., Elerink, R., Veenendaal, E., and Lee, S.

2014. Developing Win-Win Solutions for Virtual

Placements in Informatics: The VALS Case. In F. J.

García-Peñalvo (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second

International Conference on Technological Ecosystems

for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM’14) (pp. 733-

738). New York, USA: ACM.

Gerson, E.M. 2015. The interaction of research systems in

the evo-devo juncture. In Conceptual Change in

Biology: Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives on

Evolution and Development. A.C. Love, Ed. Springer,

New York, U.S., 442-458. DOI=

dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9412-1

Helsingin Sanomat. 2015. Una avaa yli miljardin euron

pelin. Helsingin Sanomat, September 4, 2015. URL=

http://www. hs.fi/kotimaa/a1441254356635 (Accessed:

20.4.2016).

Kauppalehti. 2015. Terveysteknologian vienti rikkoi ennä-

tyksiä. Kauppalehti, April 9, 2015. URL=http://www.

kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/terveysteknologian-vienti-rikkoi-

ennatyksia/AjFvuGRg (Acccessed: 4.10.2017)

Koskinen, J. and Knaapi-Junnila, S. 2014. Information

technology – the unredeemed opportunity to reduce

cultural and social capital gap between citizens and

professionals in healthcare. In ICT and Society, 11th

IFIP TC 9 International Conference on Human Choice

and Computers HCC11. K. Kimppa, D. Whitehouse, T.

Kuusela, and J. Phahlamohlaka, Eds. Springer, Turku,

July 30 - August 1, 2014, 333-346, DOI=dx.

doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44208-1_27

Krausz M., Ward J. & Ramsey D. 2016. From Telehealth to

an Interactive Virtual Clinic. In: Mucic D., Hilty D.

(Eds.) e-Mental Health. Springer

DOI=https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20852-7_15

Lahtiranta, J. 2014. New and Emerging Challenges of the

ICT-Mediated Health and Well-Being Services.

Doctoral Thesis. Turku Centre for Computer Science.

URL= http:// www.doria.fi/handle/10024/96886

(Accessed: 4.10.2017).

Lahtiranta, J., Koskinen, J.S.S. and Nurminen, M. 2015.

Sensemaking in personal health space, Information

Technology and People, 28, 4, 790-805, DOI=http://dx.

doi.org/ 10.1108/ITP-09-2014-0214

Lasi, H., Fettke, P., Kemper, H., Feld, T., and Hoffman, M.

2014. Industry 4.0. Business & Information Systems.

4,1 (Aug. 2014), 239-242.

DOI=dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12599-014-0334-4

Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F.J., Huisingh, D., and

Lambrechts, W. 2013. Declarations for sustainability in

higher education: becoming better leaders, through

addressing the university system. Journal of Cleaner

Production. 48,1, 10-19. DOI=

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2011.10.006

Saranen Consulting. 2015. Terveysteknologia-alalle tulossa

yli tuhat uutta työpaikkaa ensi vuonna. URL=

http://www.

saranen.fi/uutiset/terveysteknologia_alalle_tuhat_tyop

aikkaa/ (Accessed: 4.10.2015)

Stewart, J. and Hyysalo, S. 2008. Intermediaries, users and

social learning in technological innovation.

International Journal of Innovation Management. 12,

3, pp. 295-325, DOI=

dx.doi.org/10.1142/S1363919608002035

Stewart, J. 2000. Cafematics: the cybercafé and the

community. In Community Informatics. M. Gurstein,

Ed. Idea Group Publishing, 320-338, DOI=

http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4018/978-1-878289-69-8.ch015

Industry-oriented Education in eHealth

419