From feature to framework: why an upgrade isn’t a strategy #DURBBU

Posted on by

Last week I attended the Durham Blackboard User Conference, my first visit in nine years and over 13 years since I last presented here.

Building on my work as VLE Implementation Manager at Buckinghamshire New University, covering the upgrade and launch of Blackboard Ultra, I submitted two proposals of which one was accepted – “From feature to framework: why an upgrade isn’t a strategy.”

Read the full abstract below:

When we (BNU) upgraded to Blackboard Ultra, the technical work was visible. The strategic work, however, wasn’t. 

The visible work is easy to explain: course copies, data migration, project updates, go-live dates, training schedules, staff briefings, module template, etc. But the real challenge would come after this … embedding the VLE as a core, student facing system integral to the operation of the institution. Once the excitement of new features fades, what remains? 

Was this an interface, or an institutional, change? 

At Buckinghamshire New University, our upgrade happened under time pressure, regulatory scrutiny, and growing expectations around digital consistency. It became clear that the platform itself would not solve anything unless we addressed the smaller, structural decisions sitting underneath it. 

  • Who owns digital learning beyond the project team? 
  • What does “good” look like at BNU?  
  • Where does captured content sit in academic expectation?  
  • How do we close legacy spaces responsibly?  
  • How do we ensure accessibility and OfS defensibility are embedded, not retrofitted? 

These are not headline features. They do not appear in release notes. But they determine whether an upgrade becomes transformation or simply change. 

This session reflects on the governance layer of a VLE transition: the frameworks, oversight structures, and design principles that turned a technical migration into a sustainable institutional shift. 

Drawing on our experience leading an Ultra implementation within a compressed timeline, this presentation will share the practical structures that supported long-term clarity: 

  • Clear institutional ownership of digital learning.  
  • Defined expectations aligned to pedagogy.  
  • Structured decision-making beyond IT.  
  • A phased approach to closing legacy environments.  

Ultra is the tool. Strategy is the difference. Sometimes the “little things” that make the biggest impact aren’t features at all; they’re the decisions no one sees. 

The event had a sub-theme of 80s pop-culture that was perfectly personified by the chair, Malcolm Murray, dressing up as Adam Ant and delivering a cornucopia of 80s references and puns. Which led me to design my presentation to match, using my poor aged mind to remember my gaming history on the ZX81 and ZX Spectrum.

I’ve loaded my slides to Slideshare, which I realise I’ve not logged in to or even looked at for way too long.

Following the session, questions and discussion clustered around three main areas:

  • First, there was strong interest in how the module template aligned with Active Digital Design in practice. Delegates were keen to understand how pedagogic principles were translated into something usable at scale; not as guidance, but as a lived structure within every module. The conversation focused on how much flexibility remained for academics, and how design decisions balanced consistency with disciplinary difference.
  • Second, several questions explored the role of the module checklist. This was seen as a useful bridge between expectation and implementation providing a clear, repeatable standard without becoming overly bureaucratic. Discussion centred on how we introduce it, how ‘enforceable’ was it, and how we used it to support quality assurance without adding unnecessary burden.
  • Finally, there was significant interest in BNU response to the upgrade. Questions reflected a shared concern across institutions: how to manage resistance, maintain trust, and support colleagues through change. The discussion highlighted the importance of co-design, clear communication, and positioning the template as a support mechanism rather than a constraint.

Across all three themes, a common thread emerged: successful change wasn’t driven by the platform itself, but by how clearly expectations were defined, embedded, and supported in practice.