Part one of a two-part series
Universities share research infrastructure, co-author papers across continents and form networks of expertise that transcend borders. Knowledge has rarely been confined to a single institution.
Yet the financial realities facing the sector are introducing a new dynamic. As universities compete more intensely for students, research funding and global reputation, some leaders are beginning to ask whether that collaborative instinct is being quietly tested. The question is not whether collaboration still matters – it obviously does – but how the conditions in which it takes place are changing.
And for university CIOs, this question is significant.
Nowhere is the increasing tension between collaboration and competition clearer than in the conversation around AI.
During a recent roundtable with university IT leaders, one theme surfaced repeatedly: whilst AI presents enormous opportunities for improving student support, operational efficiency and research capability, it may also act as a competitive differentiator. If an institution develops a particularly effective approach – whether through AI-enhanced student services, automated administrative workflows or advanced research tools -sharing those insights may feel more complex.
Historically, universities have shared lessons learned openly – for example in protecting against cyber crime. But when a technology is seen as offering a genuine strategic advantage, institutions may feel pressure to protect that edge.
This is not a reflection of diminished goodwill; rather, it reflects the realities of a more competitive environment in which student recruitment, financial sustainability and reputation are increasingly intertwined.
The tension is also cultural. Collaboration within higher education is not simply institutional; it is deeply personal.
Academic careers are built through networks developed over decades through doctoral programmes, research partnerships, visiting fellowships and shared projects. These relationships often transcend institutional boundaries and underpin the collaborative culture of the sector.
More fundamentally, collaboration is not simply common practice within universities; it is widely understood as the most effective way to achieve outcomes.
That makes the emerging competitive pressures particularly uncomfortable. For many academic and professional teams, limiting collaboration or treating knowledge as something to be protected rather than shared runs counter to deeply ingrained instincts about how universities should operate. Attempting to manage or control collaboration does not sit easily within environments where openness has always been the norm.
The challenge facing universities therefore is not simply operational but cultural: how to maintain a collaborative ethos while navigating an environment where institutional pressures are pulling in a more competitive direction.
Across the sector, there is growing recognition that collaboration may need to become more structured and intentional.
Sector analysis, including work from Universities UK and perspectives from the Association of Heads of University Administration, suggests that the next phase of collaboration may involve more formal alliances, shared services and coordinated partnerships between institutions.
In this model, collaboration becomes tangible. Indeed this is already happening in cyber security. Threat intelligence sharing, sector-wide resilience initiatives and coordinated responses to emerging risks demonstrate how universities can collectively strengthen defences in ways that would be difficult to achieve alone. As the cyber landscape becomes more complex, collaboration in this space is likely to become even more important and increasingly dependent on secure digital foundations.
Collaboration may also increasingly extend beyond the university sector itself. Partnerships with technology companies, civic organisations, regional authorities and industry are becoming more common as institutions seek to accelerate innovation and access expertise that no single university could easily build alone.
Paradoxically, this in itself may become a differentiator. Institutions that are able to build strong alliances both within and beyond the sector may find themselves better placed to innovate, manage risk and scale new capabilities than those operating independently.
The result is a different model, one supported by clearer frameworks, shared infrastructure and deliberate digital foundations.
The digital implications of all this are impossible to ignore.
Shared platforms, joint data environments and cross-institution partnerships introduce new questions around identity management, data governance and cyber resilience. Universities must protect sensitive research data while enabling coworking, support AI experimentation while maintaining ethical guardrails, and connect multiple organisations without expanding cyber risk.
These are no longer purely technical issues; they are strategic ones.
And it will be the responsibility of the CIO to deliver.
Founder and Chief Revenue Officer
Matt is one of Roc's founders and brings extensive experience across the tech sector, especially within the higher education industry. Dedicated to supporting strategic customers, Matt pairs deep industry expertise with a collaborative, long-term approach that helps organisations innovate and succeed.
Over the past decade, the role of the university CIO has steadily evolved from infrastructure leader to strategic partner. But as collaboration across the sector becomes more structured and strategically important, that role is expanding again.
For years, cyber security in higher education has been focussed primarily on data – institutional research, personal information and systems. Yet for university CIOs today, the more pressing issue is broader and, increasingly, more human.
End-of-support moments often trigger defensive thinking. Get compliant. Keep the lights on. Minimise disruption. These are valid concerns — but they don’t reflect the potential value on the table.
Partnerships sit at the heart of how most organisations now operate. Whether it’s suppliers, delivery partners, or internal teams, very little is achieved in isolation. Yet partnership is also one of the areas where good intentions often outpace good design.
The best kind of change is often the kind you don’t notice happening. Systems run smoother, processes feel easier, people stop sighing at their screens – and suddenly everything just works a little better.
True modernisation is less about speed – and more about substance. We talk about modernisation as if it’s a race – a finish line you can cross and then move on. It isn’t.
The modern enterprise has shifted beyond recognition.
Hybrid working is embedded, cloud adoption continues at pace, and data now moves across a range of devices, locations, and applications. As this digital footprint expands, the traditional network perimeter has dissolved.
AI has altered the physics of cybersecurity. Threats now move faster than policies can adapt, and defences evolve in real time. The traditional idea of resilience – static controls, periodic reviews, and defined perimeters – no longer fits.
In an era where many students invest over £60,000 in a university education, the question of value for money has become a defining factor in university choice. But “value” is not universal.