A Framework for an Open Education Supply Chain Network

Barbara Class

, Felicia Soulikhan

, Sandrine Favre

and Naoufel Cheikhrouhou

TECFA, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Geneva,

Pont d’Arve 40, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland

Geneva School of Business Administration, University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland (HES-SO),

1227 Geneva, Switzerland

Keywords: Open Education, Supply Chain, Value, Resources, 21

Century Skills, Commons.

Abstract: Open Education (OE) as a concept has been around for some years. Yet, a part from Open Educational

Resources and Open Science, teachers and researchers are usually not aware of it. The aim of this paper is to

conceptualise OE from the perspective of supply chain management (SCM), implicitly positioning it in the

world of opens, the commons, the state and the market. Within a design-based approach, the concepts related

to OE and SCM are presented, discussed and integrated in a novel framework dealing with the management

of OE ecosystem. Findings show that keywords of the Open Education Supply Chain are cocreation, agile

design and authority. The framework invites to create value from resources in a holistic way, balancing the

commons, the state and the market in each stakeholder.

1 INTRODUCTION

“Knowledge is open if anyone is free to access, use,

modify, and share it — subject, at most, to measures

that preserve provenance and openness”

(OpenKnowledgeFoundation, no date).

Open movements are numerous, all spreading

from a “non-open existing entity”. For example, Open

Science stems from science as conducted in the last

decades and which showed its limits. Open Source

Software was one of the first open movements that

gave the tone in the computing community. Open

Scholarship, Open Galleries, Libraries, Archives and

Museums (Open GLAM), Open Source Hardware,

Open Government, Open Enterprises, Open

Knowledge are but examples towards the open

movement.

To ground the knowledge economy started by the

Bologna process (Huisman et al., 2012), winds of

change are blowing on education. For a quick

reminder, the Bologna process aimed at harmonising

the different European higher education systems to

facilitate mobility and employment across countries.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5461-2307

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9743-7000

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1340-1802

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2497-2528

In parallel, 20 years ago, a consequent reflexion

started, laying the legal ground for opens and

commons to exist: the Creative Commons (Stacey &

Hinchliff Pearson, 2017). Both the Bologna process

and the Creative Commons foundations make OE

possible and realistic today.

The overall objective of this paper is to suggest a

framework for Open Education (Stacey, 2018) in the

perspective of digital supply chain management

(Garay-Rondero et al., 2019). Education rests on

numerous distributed actors and conceptualising it

from supply chain (SC) perspectives makes sense,

especially for Open Education (OE), which represents

an emerging sustainable paradigm shift.

It is a timely issue to consider SC in education to

imagine how institutions and different stakeholders

will be able to implement OE (i.e. deliver open

badges; create open certifications). To do this, it is

important to overcome the costs of innovation and

connect the different opens together. The ultimate

goal being to achieve an “Open Ecosystem” in which

the different components interact and support each

other in interconnected ways (FOSTER, 2018;

Santos-Hermosa, 2019; Stacey, 2018). OE is THE

Class, B., Soulikhan, F., Favre, S. and Cheikhrouhou, N.

A Framework for an Open Education Supply Chain Network.

DOI: 10.5220/0010452506170624

In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2021) - Volume 1, pages 617-624

ISBN: 978-989-758-502-9

617

example where all these “Opens” can interconnect.

The first reason is related to the fact that stakeholders

in education are usually involved in all three major

resources’ users and value creation players – the

commons, the state and the market. The second

reason is that education is everywhere and can

potentially be connected to hardly any open

movement.

The paper is outlined as follows. First, a

methodology is presented followed by the

development of the research background with a

discussion of the 21

century skills and value

creation. The framework of supply chain

management (SCM) for OE is finally presented and

its features are discussed with some examples.

2 METHODOLOGY

The idea presented in this position paper -

conceptualise OE as a SCM - originates from a

research project. It is a Swiss National Science

Foundation (SNSF) funded project on OE called

Open Education for Research Methodology Teaching

across the Mediterranean (Class, 2020; Class &

Akkari, Accepted). Methodologically speaking, it

utilises Design-Based Research (DBR) (McKenney

& Reeves, 2019). DBR is iterative and starts from a

problem encountered by practitioners – in this case,

higher education teachers’ implementation of OE

practices. Starting from the literature and from a

partnership between researchers, teachers and

stakeholders, it seeks to build a solution that is

theoretically backed. The process consists of

identifying the problem, suggesting solutions,

designing a prototype, evaluating scientifically the

prototype and extracting design rules to guide the

next design cycle. Cycles repeat until sustainable

solutions are found at the levels of practice and theory

and it is for this reason that DBR is known as « use

inspired basic research » (Stokes, 1997). Theoretical

and practical contributions are relevant beyond the

local context and provide insights for other similar

contexts.

Focusing on the conceptualisation of OE in SC

perspectives helps understand who is involved and

how and model potential use case scenario. The

framework and scenario stem from the literature

review and form solutions that will later be

operationalised in prototypes and evaluated. The sub-

research question associated to this piece of research

is: How can the conceptualisation of Open Education

in terms of supply chain contribute to providing

concrete answers to Open Education practices in

higher education?

3 21 ST CENTURY SKILLS AND

VALUE CREATION

3.1 21

Century Skills

It is a given that a certain percentage of jobs in 2030

have not been invented yet - 9% (according to

McKinsey cited by Reynolds Lewis, 2019). The

literature (Rios et al., 2020; van Laar et al., 2020),

organisations like the World Economic Forum, and

the market (WorldEconomicForum, 2016) agree on a

set of skills that need to be trained despite being able

to train for specific skills required for a known job

(Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Figure 1: Prospective most demanded skills for 2020

(WorldEconomicForum, 2016).

Figure 2: Skills needed according to the literature and to the

market’s demands (Rios et al., 2020).

How to capitalise on skills to create value remains

a relevant question in an ecosystem where change is

the rule.

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

618

3.2 Value Creation

Value is shared by both concepts central to this paper

- SC and OE. Value can be defined from many

perspectives but the way social learning - best known

as learning within communities of practice - defines

it is in line with OE and is selected for this position

paper. Value is defined in terms of agency and

meaningfulness of participation. More precisely,

participating is perceived as conducting to a

difference that matters. Looking with finer

granularity at value, it can be decomposed in four

different actions which happen in a linear modality.

Generating value in the sense of moving towards

making a difference is the first action. Translating this

generated value is the second action and consists in

transforming something of value. This action is a

pivot articulating value and social learning. Framing

social value represents the third action and consists in

formulating expectations for the creation of new

value. Finally, the fourth action, which is evaluating

social learning, seeks to investigate the difference

learning is making or not (Wenger-Trayner &

Wenger-Trayner, 2020, pp. 44-45).

Communities of practice and commons share

concepts like value and agency. As a matter of fact,

commons are understood as meaningful actions

undertaken by a certain number of citizens, who want

to exercise their agency, and get organised for a given

cause outside of the state or the market (Stacey &

Hinchliff Pearson, 2017). Commons, when concerned

with learning are quasi synonymous of communities

of practice. Authors have been working on

communities of practice for more than 30 years (Lave

& Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) and they now strive

to better understand value (Wenger-Trayner &

Wenger-Trayner, 2020). Value is to be understood as

a set of six phases of a cycle within the larger four

actions mentioned above (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Value creation according to Wenger & Wenger

(2020, p. 75).

The first one is immediate value – gathering what

happened and personal experiences from activities

and interactions. The second one is potential value,

knowledge capital – what has been produced and

which value will potentially be realised in the future.

Third comes applied value – changes in personal

practices ensuing from leveraging knowledge capital.

The fourth is realised value – what aspects of one’s

performance achievements are affected by using

knowledge capital. The fifth is enabling value -

learning how to enable learning and the sixth is

strategic value - negotiating learning imperatives.

The seventh is orienting value - situating the social

learning space in the broader landscape and

transformative value - recognising broader and/or

deeper transformations social learning can leverage

(Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2020; Wenger

et al., 2011). Enabling, orienting, strategic and

transformative values act more on the macro level and

build upon more individual values situated at a micro

level - immediate, potential, applied and realised

(Wenger-Trayner et al., 2019; Wenger-Trayner &

Wenger-Trayner, 2020).

4 OPEN EDUCATION

Social learning spaces are related to open learning in

the sense that it is realised outside of formal

institutional frameworks. Engagement, agency that

individuals leverage to make social learning happen

are very present in Open Education. In higher

education, OE issues are addressed in reference to the

European framework suggested by Inamorato dos

Santos et al. (2016). This framework consists of 4

transversal dimensions (technology, strategy,

leadership, quality) that drive the 6 core educational

practices identified as openable (content, pedagogy,

recognition, collaboration, research and access).

Concerning core educational practices, in

accordance with Stacey (2018)’s roadmap, OE is

discussed in terms of Open Educational Resources

(OER) – how to produce, adopt and adapt them

(Stracke et al., 2019; Weller et al., 2018), and in terms

of OE practices - teaching openness (Nascimbeni et

al., 2018) and conceptual perspectives (Cronin &

Maclaren, 2018). Issues of Open Admission, Open

Recognition, Open Assessment and Open Credentials

are discussed at the theoretical level (Wiley, 2017),

and at the cultural change level (Chiappe et al., 2016).

Open Education Practices (Cronin, 2017), assembling

them all and Open Competencies (Wiley, 2017) are

also discussed. OE practices can only take place if all

interconnected components are present and active -

Strategic

Enabling

Orienting

Transformative

1. Immediate

2. Potential

3. A

lied

4. Realised

Conversations with

stakeholders

Broader effect

What makes it possible

Interactions

with broader

landscape

1- Your experience of i

2- What

et out of i

3- What you do with i

4- Th

esu

A Framework for an Open Education Supply Chain Network

619

Open Admission, Open Competencies, Open

Educational Resources, Open Assessments and Open

Credentials (Wiley, 2017).

The feedbacks from the field, in the form of

concrete experiences with OE, are starting to be

shared (García-Holgado et al., 2020). Concerning

quality, a first OE quality framework, in reference to

ISO/IEC 40180, has been suggested (Stracke, 2019).

At the strategic and leadership levels, major OE

enablers are i) a clear policy priority assigned to OE;

ii) an awareness-raising on OE, targeting leaders and

educators; and iii) capacity-building in OE for

educators and other stakeholders (Inamorato dos

Santos et al., 2017). Finally, concerning technology,

projects like QualiChain

work on smart open badges

solutions and a reflexion on technological compliant

solutions is on-going (Coëtlogon, 2019).

5 SUPPLY CHAIN

MANAGEMENT

5.1 Physical Supply Chains

Value is targeted by supply chains. Supply comes

from offering support. Etymologies of the concept in

French and English are very complementary, related

to offering support backed with mathematical

reasoning

. SC principles usually consist of

designing, managing and controlling physical,

information and financial flows. The idea is to

consider OE as complex service SCs in which

learners exercise their agency to create their own

academic path. Through a number of academic nodes,

which may create known problems such as

bottlenecks, inadequate workload/capacity ratio, etc.,

diverse and creative paths can be created. The

rationale is to consider the principles of SCM concept

apply for OE ecosystems.

Constructs of SCM entail four components. First

comes the SCM components divided into structural

management components - e.g. planning and control

methods, workflow activity structure, organisational

structure, communication and information flow

facility structure, knowledge management, and

behavioural management components - e.g.

management methods, power and leadership, risk and

reward, culture and attitude, trust and commitment.

Second comes the SCM processes - e.g. customer and

supplier relationship management, manufacturing

flow management, product development and

https://qualichain-project.eu/

commercialisation. Third comes the SC network

structure - e.g. upstream suppliers, distributors, end-

users. Finally comes the SC flows - e.g. material flow

(inbound), finished products/goods flow (outbound),

services flow, information flow, knowledge flow,

financial resources flow, return flows of

goods/services (Garay-Rondero et al., 2019).

At the market level, obstacles associated with SCs

are usually lack of competence, lack of visibility,

malfunctioning models, out-dated technologies, and

long response times (Queiroz et al., 2019). Business

managers must thus constantly improve their

processes, anticipate and adapt to increasingly

changing customer preferences in a 4.0 economy

where digital technology and disruption has taken

competition to the next level (Koh, 2017).

5.2 Digital Supply Chains

A Digital supply chain (DSC) is defined as a set of

interconnected activities that take place interactively

between suppliers and customers, and which are

processed using new technologies (Büyüközkan &

Göçer, 2018). DSC has the potential to offer a range

of practices that can significantly reduce costs,

increase product availability, improve access to

information, and enhance the responsiveness,

collaboration capabilities, visibility and resilience of

the entire SC. In addition, two topics are discussed: i)

the implementation of digital technologies in the DSC

to leverage new relationships between suppliers and

customers; and ii) the roles these technologies have in

transforming SC capabilities and operational

performance (Ehie & Ferreira, 2019). Moreover,

impact such as the integration of physical flows with

digital technologies in a DSC has shown to improve

visibility, responsiveness, robustness and resilience,

while enabling the optimisation of organisational

performance (Gunasekaran et al., 2017).

The different models existing in the literature are

inspiring for an educational context but would need

consistent adaptation to comply with the needs of OE,

e.g. consider the learner as a co-actor in the chain and

not as a consumer of a ready-made product; consider

the chain as a network to break its linearity.

5.3 Goals of Commons, the State and

the Market

Two questions need to be addressed. The first relates

to the use of resources: how to use them? And the

https://www.lalanguefrancaise.com/dictionnaire/definition/

logistique; https://www.etymonline.com/word/supply

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

620

second relates to the goals of different stakeholders

towards resources: what are the goals of each

stakeholder towards resources? The market aims at

maximising the utility of a resource to, in turn,

maximise monetary value. The state has different

goals and aims at balancing the market to cater for

social and cultural needs of citizens. The commons

have yet different goals: they seek to maximise

“access, equity, distribution, participation,

innovation, and sustainability” (Stacey & Hinchliff

Pearson, 2017, p. 7).

The main principle for commons is a principle of

abundance (and not scarcity). For example, the open

source movement has gained recognition for its

unique community efforts of reliability, scalability

and quality through independent peer review. Giving

control to citizens has given rise to a new way of

measuring value, namely one associated with a

network effect. Value is measured through the

number of people who participate and use a given

product (Stacey & Hinchliff Pearson, 2017).

The different open movements are an invitation to

get involved as stakeholders instead of being a

“passive recipient” of something prepackaged for by

a supplier who knows exactly what is needed. This

operationalises into value creation system in which

multiple parties are adding value into a process. Value

is involved in complex networks between suppliers

and customers and is constructed in these

interactions. In addition, the created value is best

understood as an offering rather than a product. An

offering is an artefact designed to more effectively

enable and organise value co-production (Stacey,

2020). The idea of making change and heading

towards sustainability is also present in the open

movements (Chan et al., 2020).

6 TOWARDS A PHYSICAL AND

DIGITAL SUPPLY CHAIN FOR

OPEN EDUCATION

The academic landscape has been undergoing

important changes in the last decades. From

privileged knowledge providers, universities turned

into a factory mode where society dictated immediate

competences needed. A dialogical perspective is now

emerging, where universities and societies network to

build societal value and human worth, considering

higher education a place to develop academic

professional learning and citizenship (Norgard et al.,

2019). In relationship to this changing landscape,

social forms of learning in the sense of commons and

communities of practice are developing and raise

increased interest (McDonald & Cater-Steel, 2017).

The idea presented in the paper is to make use of

the principles in managing SCs and networks and

adapt them to OE issues. There are three main layers

of SCM to be considered: i) the design phase of the

SC, which consists of developing ‘roads’ and ‘nodes’

through which physical, information and financial

flows will be managed; ii) the planning phase of the

flows, through advanced planning systems; and, iii)

the control of the different flows at the operation

level.

Some basic and fundamental principles from

digital supply chain management are adapted to OE.

The flows considered are the flows of the different

participants involved in an educational system, no

matter their academic background or their geographic

location. The nodes considered are the different

educational institutions taking part in any given

training – undergraduate or postgraduate programme

within the educational world. The main principles are

featured in terms of flow management, bottleneck

management and queuing networks management.

Flow management: A flow in OE is constituted of

students requesting to participate to courses in order

to get credits, certificates or diplomas. They are

considered as intelligent agents that could influence

their own path and dynamically change it according

to their own interactions with the remaining

intelligent agents. Therefore, a dynamic management

of the Open Education Supply Chain (OESC) is

needed.

Bottleneck management: The OE nodes could be

either physical (face-to-face training) or online (on-

line training) or blended (both online and face-to-

face). Therefore, bottlenecks in the OESC can occur

when the number of open positions for

participants/students is limited with respect to the

number of participants requesting the use of a specific

node. This issue is much more important in the case

of face-to-face presence requested by some

institutions. Therefore, bottleneck management

principles are considered in that case, with solutions

that can vary from the increase of the physical

capacity of a specific node to the dynamic rerouting

of the agents to different nodes that can provide the

same educational level and quality needed.

Queuing networks management: In the case

where the participants request physical facilities,

scheduling techniques could be used.

Moving away from linear processes (Stacey &

Wiley, no date), talking of an Open Education Supply

Chain seems more appropriate. The framework

should be completely disruptive, redefining

A Framework for an Open Education Supply Chain Network

621

components, processes, network structure and flows

in reference to Garay-Rondero et al. (2019)’s work

above mentioned.

At this preliminary phase, the physical and digital

SC for OE would start at stage 5 of the innovation

maturity model for technology adoption by teachers

(Eduvista, 2010-2014) - empower stakeholders. Stage

5, is about redefining and innovating use with

technology, supporting new learning services,

moving towards agile teaching and considering

learners as co-designers of the learning journey.

This would reflect the paradigm shift that is

undergoing in higher education. This shift is

somewhat similar to the one that occurred in the

Middle Ages when universities were created. At that

time, knowledge started to step out from the sole

religious powers to spread into civil powers. Today,

with the Internet, the globalisation and the different

Open movements, knowledge is stepping out from

universities. It is stepping out of universities that

represent the state to spread into the Commons, i.e.

the civil society.

Key concepts of the OESC are: cocreation, agile

design and authority. Authority because stakeholders

who deliver training content, evaluate competences,

etc. must be recognised as competent for doing what

they are doing across market, commons and state.

Cocreation of learning paths, learning activities, etc.

are guiding principles to empower learners as active

and intelligent agents, co-creators of their learning

experience. Agile design is closely related to co-

creation and relates to ideas about 21st century skills

needed but do not have a ready-made answer.

Trying to feature out roles in such an ecosystem,

universities, in partnership with commons, could be

the ones accountable for i) creating competence

frameworks, ii) identifying Technological

Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (Mishra &

Koehler, 2006) per micro domains and iii) assessing

knowledge and competences. Learners could be

developing active leadership to decide upon their

learning, knowledge and competence development

paths. The market, in partnership with commons,

could be the ones who decide where to lead human

mankind on the earth (e.g. ecological and sanitary

crises) and create new jobs accordingly.

To summarise, as shown in Figure 4, each

stakeholder is a unified entity composed of parts that

have been kept separate till now (cf. colours of the

circle indicate the mainstream of each entity). These

different entities interact and work closely together to

create aligned value from resources.

Figure 4: Towards an Open Education Supply Chain.

7 CONCLUSION

This paper suggests that it is possible to conceive an

Open Education Supply Chain at the theoretical level.

Key to the SC is the idea of generating value, which

is also at the heart of open movements. Generating

value is done in a process of four steps: moving

forward while making a difference, translating the

generated value, framing social value and evaluating

value (Wenger-Trayner & Wenger-Trayner, 2020).

Traditionally, SC’s role is designing, planning,

managing and controlling physical, financial and

information flows. Considering OE as service supply

chains empowers learners. They can make use of

agency to create their own academic path within

which they can develop skills and knowledge.

Advantages of digital supply chains are reduced costs

(e.g. textbooks published as Open Educational

Resources are totally free), increased product

availability (e.g. the same textbook can be

downloaded as many times as wished), improved

access to information (i.e. the only condition to access

it is possessing a device that is connected to the

Internet) and enhanced responsiveness, collaboration

capabilities, visibility and resilience of the entire

supply chain (e.g. the textbook can easily be

augmented and users alerted).

The concept of Open Education Supply Chain

makes sense, because the paradigm shift takes

knowledge outside of universities, bringing it to the

commons. Three main levels have to be considered:

the design phase of the supply chain, which consists

of developing graphs consisting of networks of

Market

Commons

State

Market

Commons

State

Market

Commons

State

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

622

‘roads’ and ‘nodes’ through which flows can run; the

planning phase, which develops learning paths and

skills as objectives; and, finally, the control of the

different flows at the operation level, which calls for

re-routing and scheduling within the network,

considering the potential huge number of learners.

The framework is an attempt to tackle the

complexity of the OE ecosystem that calls for

institutional autonomy of the ‘Universities’ and for

self-management when it comes to learners. This

research work will be completed by implementing the

conceptual Open Education Supply Chain into a

prototype to evaluate the challenges when put into

practice. In parallel, future research could analyse

existing but not yet fully unveiled Open Education

Supply Chains.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper takes place at the very start of an SNSF

funded project entitled Open Education for Research

Methodology Teaching across the Mediterranean.

This work is partially funded by the Réseau de

Competences de Suisse Occidentale (RCSO) under

the Grant 103483 RPNP.

REFERENCES

Büyüközkan, G., & Göçer, F. (2018). Digital Supply Chain:

Literature review and a proposed framework for future

research. Computers in Industry, 97, 157-177.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.02.010

Chan, L., Hall, B., Piron, F., Tandon, R., & Williams, L.

(2020). La science ouverte au-delà du libre accès : Pour

et avec les communautés. Un pas vers la décolonisation

des savoirs. Préparé pour la Commission canadienne

pour l’UNESCO. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.394

7013

Chiappe, A., Pinto, R., & Arias, V. (2016). Open

Assessment of Learning: A Meta-Synthesis.

International Review of Research in Open and

Distributed Learning, 17(6), 44-61. https://doi.org/

10.19173/irrodl.v17i6.2846

Class, B. (2020). Features for an International Learning

Environment in Research Education. International

Conference on Computer Supported Education, On-

line.

Class, B., & Akkari, A. (Accepted). Le projet RESET-

Francophone : vers une formation ouverte et libre à la

méthodologie de la recherche en éducation.

L’éducation en débats : analyse comparée.

Coëtlogon, P. (2019). Vers une blockchain dédiée à

l’éducation, capable de certifier les diplômes comme

les droits de propriété intellectuelle ? Actualités du

droit, Kluwer. https://www.actualitesdudroit.fr/

browse/tech-droit/blockchain/20993/vers-une-block

chain-dediee-a-l-education-capable-de-certifier-les-

diplomes-comme-les-droits-de-propriete-intellectuelle

Cronin, C. M. G., & Maclaren, I. (2018). Conceptualising

OEP: A review of theoretical and empirical literature in

Open Educational Practices. Open Praxis, 10, 127-143.

Eduvista. (2010-2014). Innovation Maturity Model.

Retrieved 25 mai from http://files.eun.org/fcl/eduvista/

eduvista-tool-2p1.pdf

Ehie, I., & Ferreira, L. M. D. F. (2019). Conceptual

Development of Supply Chain Digitalization

Framework. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 52(13), 2338-2342.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.11.555

FOSTER. (2018). The Open Science Training Handbook.

https://book.fosteropenscience.eu/en/

Garay-Rondero, C. L., Martinez-Flores, J. L., Smith, N. R.,

Caballero Morales, S. O., & Aldrette-Malacara, A.

(2019). Digital supply chain model in Industry 4.0.

Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management.

https://doi.org/10.1108/Jmtm-08-2018-0280

García-Holgado, A., García-Peñalvo, F. J., Vázquez-

Ingelmo, A., Nascimbeni, F., Padilla-Zea, N., Burgos, D.,

Higuera, C., Hvarchilkova, D., Teixeira, A., Ehlers, U.

D., Bonaudo, P., & Brunton, J. (2020). Handbook of

successful open teaching practices. OpenGame

Consortium. https://repositorio.grial.eu/handle/grial/

2102

Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N., & Papadopoulos, T.

(2017). Information technology for competitive

advantage within logistics and supply chains: A review.

Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and

Transportation Review, 99, 14-33. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.tre.2016.12.008

Huisman, J., Adelman, C., Hsieh, C., Shams, F., & Wilkins,

S. (2012). Europe's Bologna process and its impact on

global higher education In D. K. Deardorff, H. D. Wit, &

J. D. Heyl (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of International

Higher Education (pp. 81-100). SAGE Publications, Inc.

https://doi.org/10.4135/978145221 8397

Inamorato dos Santos, A., Nascimbeni, F., Bacsich, P.,

Atenas, J., Aceto, S., Burgos, D., & Punie, Y. (2017).

Policy Approaches to Open Education

https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstrea

m/JRC107713/jrc107713_jrc107713_policy_approach

es_to_open_education.pdf

Inamorato dos Santos, A., Punie, Y., & Castaño Muñoz, J.

(2016). Opening up education. A support framework for

higher education institutions. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/

en/publication/eur-scientific-and-technical-research-

reports/opening-education-support-framework-higher-

education-institutions

Koh, J. H. L. (2017). Designing and integrating reusable

learning objects for meaningful learning: Cases from a

graduate programme. Australasian Journal of

Educational Technology, 33(5), 136-151.

https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3072

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning.

Legitimate peripheral participation. University of

Cambridge Press.

A Framework for an Open Education Supply Chain Network

623

McDonald, J., & Cater-Steel, A. (Eds.). (2017).

Communities of Practice. Facilitating Social Learning

in Higher Education. Springer Nature.

McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2019). Conducting

Educational Design Research (2nd ed.). Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315105642

Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological

Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for

Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6),

1017–1054.

Nascimbeni, F., Burgos, D., Campbell, L. M., & Tabacco,

A. (2018). Institutional mapping of open educational

practices beyond use of Open Educational Resources.

Distance Education, 39(4), 511-527. https://doi.org/

10.1080/01587919.2018.1520040

Norgard, R., Mor, Y., & Bengtsen, S. (2019). Networked

Learning in, for, and with the World. In A. Littlejohn,

J. Jaldemark, E. Vrieling-Teunter, & F. Nijland (Eds.),

Networked Professional Learning. Emerging and

Equitable Discourses for Professional Development

(pp. 71-88). Springer.

OpenKnowledgeFoundation. (no date). Open Definition -

Defining Open in Open Data, Open Content and Open

Knowledge. https://opendefinition.org/od/2.1/en/

Queiroz, M. M., Pereira, S. C. F., Telles, R., & Machado,

M. C. (2019). Industry 4.0 and digital supply chain

capabilities: A framework for understanding

digitalisation challenges and opportunities.

Benchmarking: An International Journal,.

https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-12-2018-0435

Reynolds Lewis, K. (2019). Preparing for the 2030 Labor

Market. Society For Human Resource Management.

https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-

magazine/winter2019/pages/preparing-for-2030-labor-

market-.aspx

Rios, J. A., Ling, G., Pugh, R., Becker, D., & Bacall, A.

(2020). Identifying Critical 21st-Century Skills for

Workplace Success: A Content Analysis of Job

Advertisements. Educational Researcher, 49(2), 80-89.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x19890600

Santos-Hermosa, G. (2019). Open Education in Europe:

Overview, integration with Open Science and the

Library role. http://eprints.rclis.org/34423/

Stacey, P. (2018). Starting Anew in the Landscape of Open.

https://edtechfrontier.com/2018/02/08/starting-anew-

in-the-landscape-of-open/

Stacey, P. (2020). Personal communication.

Stacey, P., & Hinchliff Pearson, S. (2017). Made With

Creative Commons. Ctrl+Alt+Delete Books.

Stacey, P., & Wiley, D. (no date). Building a Social

Framework For Sustaining Open Educational

Resources. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Jv

KUX7zjpqixhf95mRzTaFsPZKKqzXodirdeLf0AvoA/

edit#slide=id.p

Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur's Quadrant. Basic Science and

Technological Innovation. Brookings Institution Press.

Stracke, C. (2019). Quality Frameworks and Learning

Design for Open Education. The International Review

of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,

20(2).

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i2.42

Stracke, C., Downes, S., Conole, G., Burgos, D., &

Nascimbeni, F. (2019). Are MOOCs open educational

resources? A literature review on history, definitions

and typologies of OER and MOOCs. Open Praxis,

11(4).

van Laar, E., van Deursen, A. J. A. M., van Dijk, J. A. G.

M., & de Haan, J. (2020). Determinants of 21st-Century

Skills and 21st-Century Digital Skills for Workers: A

Systematic Literature Review. Sage Open, 10(1),

2158244019900176. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244

019900176

Weller, M., Jordan, K., DeVries, I., & Rolfe, V. (2018).

Mapping the open education landscape: citation

network analysis of historical open and distance

education research. Open Praxis, 10(2), 109-126.

Wenger-Trayner, B., Wenger-Trayner, E., Cameron, J.,

Eryigit-Madzwamuse, S., & Hart, A. (2019).

Boundaries and Boundary Objects: An Evaluation

Framework for Mixed Methods Research. Journal of

Mixed Methods Research, 13(3), 321-338.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817732225

Wenger-Trayner, E., & Wenger-Trayner, B. (2020).

Learning to Make a Difference: Value Creation in

Social Learning Spaces. Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/9781108677431

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning,

Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E., Trayner, B., & de Laat, M. (2011). Promoting

and assessing value creation in communities and

networks: a conceptual framework.

Wiley, D. (2017). Iterating Toward Openness: Lessons

Learned on a Personal Journey. In R. S. Jhangiani & R.

Biswas-Diener (Eds.), Open: The Philosophy and

Practices that are Revolutionizing Education and

Science (pp. 195-207). Ubiquity Press. https://doi.org/

10.5334/bbc.o

WorldEconomicForum. (2016). What are the 21st-century

skills every student needs? https://www.weforum.org/

agenda/2016/03/21st-century-skills-future-jobs-

students/

CSEDU 2021 - 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

624