Adaptive management model of the higher education system in the context of the transition to the digital economy

   Purpose: of the study is to develop an adaptive model of higher education system management in the context of digital transformation of the economy.

   Methods: the methods of interdisciplinary, structural and logical analysis, typologization of management models, rating and expert assessments were used in the work. The methodological basis of the research was: a three-sided model of higher education management assessment, a "management cube", including a model of new managerialism, a two-plane model of higher education system assessment, level-based, adaptive approaches to higher education management.

   Results: based on the analysis of the higher education management system in the context of the digital transformation of the economy, the need for the formation of new adaptive mechanisms and management models of this system as an area where human capital is formed and developed, necessary for the breakthrough development of the country. Also, the trends of digitalization in the field of higher education have been identifi ed. Recommendations for its adaptation to the digital transformation of the economy have been developed and substantiated. As a key tool of the adaptive management model, an organizational model of adaptive management of the higher education system has been developed, which makes it possible to adapt the entire education system to the challenges of digital transformation of the economy.

   Conclusions and Relevance: the developed organizational model will make it possible to build an eff ective work of the higher education system using adaptive management mechanisms, that allow it to optimally adapt to modern transformational processes, that occur according to cyclical crisis phenomena and the next industrial revolution. Digital transformation and the conditions of Industry 4.0, as well as the technological singularity, which is already the reality, do not allow us to strategically correctly build one specifi c model of management of the higher education system, since the above-mentioned processes become the trigger for constant transformations, including in the field of education. The organizational model of adaptive management proposed by the authors is innovative, allowing to adapt iteratively to the ongoing transformations of social and economic systems. Thus, this model is strategically relevant and promising for the both modern conditions of functioning and long-term development of the education sector.

1. Burton R.C. The higher education system. Academic organization in cross-national perspective. University of California Press, 1983. 330 p. doi: 10.2307/jj.2711690 (In Eng.)

2. Currie J. Globalization practices and the professoriate in Anglo-Pacific and North American universities. Comparative Education Review. 1998; 42(1):15–29. doi: 10.1086/447476 (In Eng.)

3. Fisher D., Rubenson K., Jones G., Shanahan T. The political economy of post-secondary education: a comparison of British Columbia, Ontario and Québec. High Education. 2009; 57:549–566. doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-9160-2 (In Eng.)

4. Becher T., Kogan M. Process and Structure in Higher Education / 2^nd edition. London: Routledge, 1992. 209 p. URL: https://archive.org/details/processstructure0000bech (accessed: 18. 07. 2023) (In Eng.)

5. Van Vught F.A. Policy models and policy instruments in higher education. The effects of governemental policy-making on the innovative behaviour of higher education institutions. IHS Political science series, 26. Vienna: IHS, 1995. 46 р. URL: http://aei.pitt.edu/32444/1/1264672129_pw_26.pdf (accessed: 18. 07. 2023) (In Eng.)

6. McDaniel O.C. The Theoretical and Practical Use of Performance Indicators. Higher Education Management. 1996; 8(3). URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Theoretical-and-Practical-Use-of-Performance-McDaniel/bb87e5b0116c70a081d7e8ccb5e9d6679f2e0da5 (accessed: 18. 07. 2023) (In Eng.)

7. Dietmar B. Changing governance models in higher education: the case of the new managerialism. Swiss political science review. 1999; 5(3):1–24. doi: 10.1002/j.1662-6370.1999.tb00276.x (In Eng.)

8. Birnbaum R. Management fads in higher education: where they come from, what they do, why they fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001. 287 p. URL: https://archive.org/details/managementfadsin0000birn (accessed: 14. 06. 2023) (In Eng.)

9. Kezar A. Understanding the relationship between organizational identity and capacities for scaled change within higher education intermediary organizations. The Review of Higher Education. 2021; 45(1):31–59. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2021.0013 (In Eng.)

10. Van Vugt F.A., de Boer H. Governance models and policy instruments. In: The Palgrave international handbook of higher education policy and governance, 2015. P. 38–56. doi: 10.1007/978-1-137-45617-5_3 (In Eng.)

11. Brennan J. Burton Clark’s the system of higher education: academic organization in an international perspective. London Review of Education. 2010; 8(3):229–237. URL: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Burton-Clark%27s-%22The-Higher-Education-System%3A-in-Brennan/cc4a76ca3adc1c8c78ed9bb04c7f47a0aba22862 (In Eng.)

12. Belyakov S.A. Foreign experience of improvement of educational governance organizing: the main models. Journal university management: Practice and analysis. 2009; (1(59)):45–63. https://www.elibrary.ru/laifev (In Russ.)

13. Vlasova N.Yu., Molokova Ye.L. The higher education models under the combination of market and state regulators. Journal of the Ural State University of Economics. 2016; (3(65)):26–38. https://www.elibrary.ru/wimhlj (In Russ.)

14. Bilenko P.N., Blinov V.I., Dulinov M.V., Yesenina E.Yu., Kondakov A.M., Sergeev I.S. Pedagogical concept of digital vocational education and training: Monograph. Moscow: Publishing House of the Moscow city pedagogical university, 2020. 112 р. https://elibrary.ru/nthvbx (In Russ.)

15. Grudzinsky A.O. Strategic management of the university: from a plan to an innovative mission. Journal university management: Practice and analysis. 2004; (1):9–20. https://www.elibrary.ru/htnmej (In Russ.)

16. Karpenko M.P., Karpenko O.M., Fokina V.N., Chmyhova E.V., Erykova V.G., Sliva A.V., Kachalova L.M., Abramova A.V. Quality of higher education: Monograph. Moscow: Publishing House of the Modern Humanitarian University, 2012. 290 p. https://www.elibrary.ru/tgafpj (In Russ.)

17. Kravchenko N.A., Markova V.D., Baldina N.P. et al. Challenges of digital transformation and high technologies business: Monograph. Novosibirsk: Publishing House of IEOPP SB RAS, 2019. 352 p. https://www.elibrary.ru/vdvgfs. URL: https://institutiones.com/download/books/4109-vyzovy-cifrovoi-transformacii-kravchenko.html (In Russ.)

18. Raitskaya L.K. Didactic and psychological foundations of the use of Web 2.0 technologies in higher professional education: Monograph. Moscow: Moscow State University, 2011. 173 p. https://www.elibrary.ru/pjdlpl (In Russ.)

19. Uvarov A.Yu., Gable E., Dvoretskaya I.V. et al. Difficulties and prospects of digital transformation of education: Monograph. Moscow: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics, 2019. 344 p. https://elibrary.ru/anygho. URL: https://ioe.hse.ru/data/2019/07/01/1492988034/Cifra_text.pdf (In Russ.)

20. De Grof J., Yankevich S.V., Agranovich M.L., Belikov A.A. et al. Management of the education system at different levels: the vertical of power, transfer of powers and regional cooperation : Collective Monograph. Moscow: Publishing House of Higher Education, 2019. 336 p. https://elibrary.ru/mztnbo. doi: 10.17323/978-5-7598-2143-4 (In Russ.)

21. Sundukova G.M., Bobyleva N.V., Dereviagina L.N. Strategic university management in a digital economy. The Eurasian Scientific Journal. 2019; 11(3):27. https://elibrary.ru/wgtndr (In Russ.)

22. Vasetskaya N.O., Glukhov V.V. University classification: criteria, features, models. St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal. Economics. 2020; 13(1):91–100. https://www.elibrary.ru/traeos. doi: 10.18721/JE.13108 (In Russ.)

23. Rimskaya O.N., Anokhov I.V., Kranbikhler V.S. Human capital in Industry 4.0. Present and Future. Economics of Science. 2021; 7(4):275–289. https://elibrary.ru/eqetmd. doi: 10.22394/2410-132X-2021-7-4-275-289 (In Russ.)

24. Kochneva A.D. Management in a general education organization. Internauka. 2023; (2-1(272)):54–55. https://elibrary.ru/orffbi (In Russ.)

25. Valladares L. Scientific literacy and social sphere. Transformation of science and education. 2021; 30:557–587. doi: 10.1007/s11191-021-00205-2 (In Eng.)

26. Byrd D. Uncovering of hegemony in higher education: a critical appraisal of the use of “institutional habitus” in empirical research. Review of educational research. 2019; 89(2):171–210. doi: 10.3102/0034654318812915 (In Eng.)

27. Chernikova O., Heitzman N., Stadler M., Holzberger D., Seidel T., Fischer F. Simulation-based learning in higher education: a meta-analysis. Review of educational research. 2020; 90(4):499–541. doi: 10.3102/0034654320933544 (In Eng.)

28. Gribanov Yu.I. Factors and conditions of digital transformation of socio-economic systems. Bulletin of the Altai academy of economics and law. 2019; (2-2):253–259. https://elibrary.ru/yzcqct (In Russ.)

29. Raza T., Raza T.K.S., Pal I., Peralta J.F., Lim H.A.M.P., Mayo Sh.M., Liwag C.R.E.U., Lopez E.M., Oinde E. Mainstreaming disaster risk management technical and vocational education and training (DRM-TVET) program in higher education institutions: flexible ladderized capacity building model amid COVID-19. In: Multi-нazard vulnerability and resilience building. Cross Cutting issues. 2023. P. 249–279. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-95682-6.00015-2 (In Eng.)

30. Schwab K. The fourth industrial revolution. N.Y.: Crown Business Publ., 2016. 198 p. (Russ. ed.: Schwab K. The fourth industrial revolution. Moscow: Eksmo Publ., 2016. 138 p.)