Jisc’s new guide, Leading AI in colleges and universities: a strategic framework for senior leaders, is aimed at principals, vice-chancellors and their leadership teams. It focuses on the decisions that set direction for AI across an institution, while leaving the operational detail to the teams they delegate to.
Senior leaders don’t need to manage every tool or pilot. They do need to decide what the institution is trying to achieve, what risks it will accept, how the work will be funded and who is accountable for it.
The framework at a glance
Jisc organises responsible AI adoption around three pillars: skills, knowledge and culture; technology; and governance. Strong data maturity and security underpin all three. The framework applies across teaching and professional services and, in universities, research.
Jisc’s implementation guide provides the operational detail for the people delivering this work. The senior-leader guide sets the decisions and boundaries they need from leadership.
Five decisions for the senior team
1. Decide how ambitious to be
Will AI be a driver of institutional change, or primarily a risk to manage? Either position can be legitimate, but leaving the question unanswered means teams are likely to make different assumptions.
2. Set the institution’s risk appetite
Leaders need to state how much reputational, academic-integrity and data risk they will accept in return for moving quickly. Jisc suggests that appetite can differ by context: an institution may move faster with teaching and administration while taking more care with sensitive data, assessment and university research.
3. Decide whether AI is a funded priority
Institutions can invest in capability and tools centrally or leave departments and services to find time and money themselves. Jisc also points to a shift towards usage-based AI costs, including consumption that can happen in the background of existing products. Forecasting and monitoring therefore need to be part of the funding decision.
4. Name a senior owner
Jisc recommends one executive-level owner, supported by a cross-institutional group. That group should connect the areas affected by AI, including education and curriculum, professional services, IT and, in universities, research.
5. Set a position on academic standards
Senior leaders should sponsor the institution’s position on how AI affects its qualifications, assessment and academic integrity. Staff and learners then need guidance that turns that position into practical expectations.
What should leaders do next?
Jisc suggests taking three items to the next executive meeting: name a senior AI owner, state the institution’s risk appetite in plain language, and commission an implementation plan mapped to the framework.
The plan can then set out the work on staff and learner capability, approved tools, governance, procurement and monitoring. Jisc’s companion implementation guide is designed to help delivery teams with those operational steps.
The framework gives leaders a useful starting point for a more consistent conversation about AI. It asks them to make the choices only they can make, then delegate the work with clear direction.