Do Universities Need To Be Fundamentally Re-imagined For The 21st Century?

Dr Caroline Burt
Subscribe Contact us

Authors

Olivia Williams, Copywriter

In the second half of the 20th century and the early years of the 21st, higher education dramatically expanded in many countries, extending the prospect of a college education to increasing numbers of students from a wider array of backgrounds.[1]

 

Here, we look at the current situation in two major providers of higher education, the US and the UK, to draw some conclusions about how universities can (re-)position themselves for success in a climate that is much less favourable than it was when expansion began, and in which the sector is under significant financial strain.


Current Challenges

 

The United States

 

In the US, college enrolments moved into reverse in 2010, falling by an average of 1% per year since then, dramatically affecting tuition fee income, which represents the largest portion of university revenues.[2]

 

This fall in overall student numbers was despite an increasing US population and a rise in international students studying in the US.[3] This pain, though, has not been evenly distributed.[4] In the US, elite institutions have been largely unaffected (quite the opposite in fact), but smaller private colleges in particular have seen marked declines. A number have already folded (861 between 2004 and 2022 to be precise)[5] and some have merged in order to survive.

 

The forecast for others looks perilous.[6] The present outlook is not promising unless enrolments begin to increase again. Yet, state funding is now significantly lower than it was before the Great Recession and shows no sign of increasing significantly any time soon.[7] The situation is worse in some states than in others, partly because funding reductions from 2008 did not affect all states equally; for example, a number of southern states were disproportionately affected. While the overall average reduction in state funding per student between 2008 and 2018 was 13%, it was above 30% in Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oklahoma.[8] To put this into perspective, at public universities, state funding covers around 50% of teaching costs.[9] Colleges have tried to compensate for declining government income by reducing staffing and restricting the programmes and services on offer, but there is now arguably little left to cut.

 

With concurrent increases in federal government support for individual students not having kept pace with significant rises in tuition fees, a fee ceiling has arguably been reached. Furthermore, the scale of fee rises has led to changes in the way students approach university applications, with the recent trend being for students to set their sights on a smaller number of elite institutions.[10] If you are going to pay more, you might as well aim for a better school with better career outcomes.

 

One recent survey put the difference in preference for a more expensive university with a good reputation, compared with going to a cheaper institution with a lesser reputation, at over ten percentage points for both prospective students and parents.[11] As some universities have pulled ahead in the enrolments game, opportunities have inevitably declined for those students with less money and capacity to travel out of state to university. General perceptions of the financial inaccessibility of a college education came out in a recent survey as the top reason why people decided not to go to college/complete their degree.[12]

 

The new race funded by debt

 

In order to try to succeed in a challenging environment, many universities in the US have embarked on costly infrastructure projects, creating something of an arms race in facilities. To put figures on this, between 2000 and 2010-11, the aggregate capital spend on new facilities was up by over 100%, at more than $11bn per year in 2010 and 2011.[13]

 

A report by EY-Parthenon noted that US HEI long-term debt in 2018 stood at almost $300bn, which represented an increase of 36% since 2011, dramatically at odds with the overall pattern of enrolments.[14] The same report showed that total debt was roughly equally divided between public and private institutions, despite public institutions accounting for around three quarters of total enrolments. In 2023, College Values Online reported on 30 US colleges that had changed a lot in the last five years, showing that in the vast majority of cases infrastructural improvements to academic and other facilities had been core to their approach. Aside from COVID-19-related measures, this was the stand-out takeaway of the summary. This is not to say that other things had not been done—several had increased the number of programmes on offer, improved resources devoted to student wellbeing, generated partnerships with businesses, and focussed on innovation and entrepreneurialism—but the extent to which colleges were looking to improved facilities to appeal to potential applicants was striking.[15] For those without strong endowments or public funding, this is a high-stakes approach, making failure and insolvency likely bedfellows.

 

The Private Equity effect

 

A further trend in the US has seen private equity firms acquiring universities. In 2018, an article in The Review of Financial Studies reported on 88 private equity deals involving 994 private institutions, showing that this led to increases in tuition fees and per-student debt.[16] This was coupled with lower rates of graduation, lower educational inputs, lower loan repayment rates and lower earnings among graduates, the latter possibly explained at least in part by students who would otherwise have attended community colleges being recruited to universities. In other words, there was a trade-off between value creation for the firm and value creation for the institution, particularly its students, in which the latter were the losers.

 

Private equity-owned institutions were also better at accessing government aid after acquisition and raising tuition fees quickly when government loan limits increased. There was a correlation between higher enrolment and an increased spend on marketing, with private equity-owned colleges employing twice as many ‘sales’ staff than other private colleges. As a result, the ratio of faculty to students and spend on tuition declined significantly following acquisition. Going forward, private equity might save struggling institutions, but the cost to students in terms of educational inputs and outcomes is likely to be high.

 

The United Kingdom

 

In the UK, private universities do not exist in the same way as in the US, and different arrangements are in place for each of the devolved nations. In England, central government funding has declined sharply in the last decade, and across the UK it was at its lowest point ever in 2021-22, according to Universities UK.[17] More widely, UK university funding is low relative to many countries: in fact, spending on tertiary education is the lowest among OECD countries. Tuition fees are also high, and only 20% of university spend is on R&D compared with an OECD average of 29%.[18] Russell Group (research intensive) universities indicate that they currently have a deficit of £1,750 per student, with this set to increase to £4,000 by 2024-25.[19]


The situation has been made particularly difficult by the marketisation of higher education in the last decade, in which caps on student numbers were removed as individual loans to students replaced government grants to universities. Already under strain, universities were forced to compete for students, with some, as in the US, investing heavily in expansion projects, especially infrastructural, creating high levels of debt in the sector.[20] In the same way as across the Atlantic, this debt could only be managed if the institution won, and continued to win, in the battle to recruit and retain students, even before COVID-19. While, unlike the US, numbers of UK enrolments have continued to increase, some universities have begun to lose applicants to competitors. In 2023, the University of East Anglia (UEA), announced a major projected budget deficit of £30m in 2023-24, a figure that it stated was likely to increase by 50% to £45m in three years; while it was trying to avoid compulsory redundancies, it could not rule them out.[21] It cited a challenging student recruitment market, leaving it down on enrolment targets/forecasts, at a cost to the institution running into millions.[22]


It was a similar story at Birkbeck in London.[23] It is currently unclear whether, in what is a relatively new market in higher education in the UK, the government at Westminster will step in to shore up institutions if they end up facing insolvency.[24] Alongside these individual instances of institutional challenges, we are beginning to see significant cracks appear more broadly: disputes about academic pay, working conditions and pensions, and cuts to staffing, are obvious and well publicised ones.[25]

 

General challenges to universities

 

In many countries, the UK and the US not excepted, wider questions have also emerged about the continued relevance of university degrees, particularly in the arts and humanities; and how well graduates are prepared for today’s working world.[26] It is likely that the move towards STEM subjects has particularly affected the smaller liberal arts colleges in the US, and it has had a significant effect on UK higher education.[27] In addition, there are now some employers who no longer require a university degree in order to apply for professional roles with them, complicating the picture further.[28] It is hard to know what effect this change will have, given how recent it is, but existing financial and other pressures already add up to something of a perfect storm for higher education providers, especially when coupled with the rise of competitive online learning companies, the increasing need to make improvements to student support and services, and a general rise in regulation.

 

Conclusion

 

There is no doubt, then, that areas of the tertiary education sector are not functioning well, for a mixture of reasons. This brings with it economic and societal costs. It is still the case that university graduates, on average, earn more in employment than their non-graduate peers: in the US, there is an average 40% pay gap between high school graduates and university graduates, while in the UK it is 30%.[29] So, if fewer students from less wealthy backgrounds attend university, income differentials will increase, to the detriment of both individuals and wider society: we are already seeing these trends among millennials in the US.[30] Furthermore, in areas with lower proportions of college graduates, outside investment is also less likely, exacerbating the problem. It is also generally bad news for economies: nations where university enrolments are falling rather than rising, and which therefore find themselves with a shortage of appropriately trained workers, are likely to see adverse economic impacts. Lack of funding for universities will also affect their ability to innovate and provide graduates with the skills that will be relevant in the economy as it changes, thus creating something of a vicious circle.[31]

 

How can universities respond?

 

Is it time for reinvention?

 

It would be easy to suggest that universities in the US, the UK, and many other nations, need to fundamentally reinvent themselves for a new world of learning and employment. One argument might be that they need to adopt more fully hybrid and digital learning in order to respond to increased competition in the virtual space, and hunger on the part of students for a different learning experience from the traditional university format. At the same time, it might be assumed that many of the traditional degree programmes, especially in the arts and humanities/liberal arts, are increasingly defunct in a working world for which graduates are regularly described as unprepared, and in which the skills needed are very different even from ten years ago.

 

It would be equally easy to point to the likelihood of better times soon as a result of the continued growth of the global (mobile) middle class and of international students from the southeast Asia and India in particular.

 

Both approaches are problematic. The overall growth in the number of international students in the UK and the US looks set to continue in the medium term at least, but in both countries this growth is not sufficient to offset the reductions in government funding or reverse the extent to which student aspirations have become increasingly funnelled into more elite schools and into STEM subjects. Similarly, universities in other countries are competing more strongly with the US (and the UK) than ever before; there is no guarantee therefore that universities in either country will be able to count on international students to help correct deficits in the long run.[32] In the US, this leaves struggling private colleges and state universities, which have seen steady infrastructural decline, in a precarious position that is not likely to change any time soon. State colleges might not fail entirely, but the quality of the education they offer is likely to fall significantly, disproportionately affecting particular socio-economic and racial groups. In the UK, universities with high levels of debt, and which are struggling to fill their places, are not likely to be rescued by international students.

 

On the other hand, while it is always important to look at things from an existential perspective and consider reinvention, it is also easy to fall into the trap of jettisoning both baby and bathwater. There are arguably many things about the traditional HE model that work well, and look set to continue to do so. In-person community is important to students (even if they are increasingly attracted to hybrid), as are career prospects and learning at a high-quality institution with high-quality course content.[33]

 

Furthermore, on the other side of the equation, we know that online learning provision in general is complex, requires high levels of investment, and even for specialists is not yet delivering net profit: Duolingo increased its total revenues by 47% to $369.5m in the last year, but its net loss of just under $60m was not very different from the loss it made in the year before. The growth in revenues is promising, but it remains unclear whether that will turn into net profit in the near future.[34] Pearson Education, whose initial contract with Arizona State University (ASU) was groundbreaking and helped turn ASU into a market leader in online education, has recently offloaded its online services unit to a private equity company. In a crowded and volatile market, it had not been able to keep up with competitors, and clearly did not see a profitable future for itself in online learning.[35] Pearson’s key competitors, Coursera and 2U, have not yet made a net profit, and the history of edX, bought by 2U recently, does not suggest that the viability of non-university online providers of higher education is established. In fact, most of edX’s users already had a college degree.[36] Share prices in some providers have also been falling recently after a warning by one company that ChatGPT was beginning to hurt sales.[37]

 

In connection with this, and crucially, it should be noted that ASU never outsourced the content of its online offering; even when working with Pearson, it produced and updated content in-house using its subject-based expertise. The fact that online success still depends on content developed and regularly refreshed by university staff indicates the extent to which the platform of delivery is just one part of a much more complex and multi-linked picture; universities remain specialists in tuition and research. One good example of how this can be highly effective is the Masters partnership between ASU and MIT which began in 2019.[38]

 

A more financially sustainable approach to creating the successful universities of the future

 

To state the obvious, there is no one-size-fits-all method that universities can adopt in order to remain/become successful. But, in a world in which interest rates are rising and liquidity in the economy is reducing, with no guarantee of increasing enrolments, taking on greater debt for infrastructural projects is likely to be high risk for all but a minority of universities – in other words, those with the biggest endowments and the largest sustained intake of students. Particularly given existing institutional debt levels, most universities would be wise to shore up operations in other ways before turning to the highest expenditure initiatives. One persistent issue that is often under-appreciated in its impact is the quality of institutional leadership and management. A series of small decisions can have a major effect when aggregated, so while getting the fundamentals of management right is not attention grabbing, it is an obvious (if far from easy) win. This is not just about inter-personal relationships within an organisation, but about strategy and operations. It is hard because it is the whole package.

 

A good leadership team is more likely to identify the most effective ways for the institution to move forward. Some examples of universities that have made significant strides forward in different ways in the US in recent years are the University of South Florida (USF), the University of Florida (UF) and Arizona State University (ASU).

 

In 2022, USF attained its highest position ever in US News and World Report rankings, and has been the fastest rising US university in rankings. The university has made major efforts in recent years to improve graduation rates, especially among low- and moderate-income students.[39] In 2010 its four-year graduation rate was 24%; by 2020 that had improved to 59% in the most recent federal statistics. Particularly notable was the success rate among Latino and black students, which was roughly equivalent to that of the student body as a whole. Key to this has been proactive support of students identified as being at risk of not graduating, a focus on improving courses with the highest rates of failure and reducing class sizes. Making it easier for students to remain on campus was another important plank of the strategy. Better graduation rates have impacted positively on recruitment too, in a self-fulfilling trend. What is interesting is the extent to which this strategy of improving graduation rates fits in with the weight the state government gives to this in its funding models, something that is not replicated in some other states.

 

Elsewhere in Florida, UF has similarly made a variety of improvements to its operation that have seen it rise further up the rankings, in relation to retention and graduation, class sizes, curriculum quality, in-state and out of state reputation and research expenditure.[40]

 

Meanwhile, at ASU, whilst it might be assumed that it is the university’s successful commitment to online education that has given it an edge on its competitors, that is only one part of the overall picture. Alongside the online offering, ASU has addressed multiple elements of its operation:

 

  • It has reduced its reliance on state funding (at the same time maintaining the lowest tuition fees of the three state universities in Arizona)
  • It has adjusted its approach to philanthropy
  • It has focused on the student experience, significantly raising retention and completion rates
  • It has invested in facilities
  • It has aggressively increased its research income and prestige, as well as research-driven enterprise
  • It has utilised big data to understand what is working well for students and what is not, and to enable interventions
  • It has placed great emphasis on increasing its needs-based funds and on diversifying its student intake.[41]

 

In other words, ASU has taken an innovative and dynamic approach on a number of fronts without removing the core components of how a university has traditionally been defined, and it has done so successfully.[42]


The traditional model of university education can be viable, but in a world where there are few easy wins, this requires strong leadership that analyses the university’s position and does not seek to apply a one-size-fits-all model. Instead, it builds on core strengths as a collective package, and/or seeks to carve out a USP for itself based on effective analysis of its market and operating environment.

 

In the UK, the University of Hull is an example of a university that has had to confront major difficulties, including an unsustainable deficit, and to reimagine itself in the light of those difficulties. The process of change was inevitably painful, but the university has not only weathered the storm, it has also improved its standing markedly. How it achieved transformation is discussed with bell-like clarity by Professor Susan Lea who, as Vice Chancellor, led the institution between 2017 and 2022 when the bulk of the reforms were devised and implemented.[43] As with the US case studies, Hull did not deviate from its core mission as a university; rather, it doubled down on it.

 

How can other universities achieve similar success?

 

Our model below provides an outline roadmap for other institutions to work with. The starting point is that there is no urgent need for a complete existential re-thinking of what a university is. Success can follow on performing the core functions of a traditional university well. This is not to say that innovation cannot be effective – it has always in fact been at the heart of what universities are – but rather that complete re-invention is not called for.

 

The steps to success

 

Step 1: Fully assess the current situation in relation to both internal and external factors; gather and analyse data.

 

Internal

For example:


  • Enrolments by programme
  • Retention and graduation rates by programme and student type
  • Financial position
  • Current USP/brand/niche
  • Origins of students (in-state, out of state, international, etc.), as well as their socio-economic background, ethnicity and other factors
  • Where it is doing well and where it needs to improve
  • Quality of leadership and management
  • Quality of governance structures, engagement and communications

 

External

For example:


  • Its market and the wider market, including opportunities for organic and inorganic growth
  • Brand and Competition
  • Revenue streams and opportunities to create more of these
  • Its operating environment, e.g. skills needs in the region
  • Relationships with external stakeholders
  • Emerging trends

 

Step 2: Develop a strategy and implementation plan based on the above information.

 

The model below signals the array of factors a university leadership will need to consider as part of its overall strategic vision and action plan.

Conclusion

 

Higher education institutions in a number of countries face great challenges, but to imagine that now is the time to rethink the entire function of a university would be a mistake. Fundamentally, universities offer something distinct, for which it is clear that there is still a market. The concept therefore remains valuable and viable, but in a climate of declining government funding, slowing/declining enrolments and a general shift towards STEM subjects, differentiation within the range of traditional core functions will distinguish the winners from the losers. Innovation will be an important part of differentiation for universities, as it always has been, but it should never be an end in itself.

 

At Cambridge MC, we have the expertise to help universities pivot for a stronger future. Please get in touch if you would like to learn more about our bespoke services. Use the form below or Contact Us page.


References


[1] E. Schofer & J. W. Meyer, ‘The Worldwide Expansion in Higher Education in the Twentieth Century’, American Sociological Review, vol. 70, no.6 (2005), pp. 898-920.

[2] https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/strategy/pdf/ey-the-other-looming-educational-debt-crisis-institutional-debt.pdf?download

[3] https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-enrollment-decline/; https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics; https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7857/CBP-7857.pdf; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21568235.2021.1944250

[4] https://www.publicpolicyexchange.co.uk/event.php?eventUID=NE30-PPE; https://hechingerreport.org/analysis-hundreds-of-colleges-and-universities-show-financial-warning-signs/

[5] https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-861-colleges-and-9499-campuses-have-closed-down-since-2004/

[6] https://hechingerreport.org/analysis-hundreds-of-colleges-and-universities-show-financial-warning-signs/

[7] https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2019/10/two-decades-of-change-in-federal-and-state-higher-education-funding

[8] https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-higher-education-funding-cuts-have-pushed-costs-to-students

[9]

[10] https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-higher-education-funding-cuts-have-pushed-costs-to-students

[11] https://morningconsult.com/2022/06/29/inflation-concerns-college-education-costs-reputation/

[12] https://www.highereddive.com/news/why-arent-people-going-to-college/632915/

[13] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2014/10/13/why-colleges-should-stop-splurging-on-buildings-and-start-investing-in-software/

[14] https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/ey-com/en_gl/topics/strategy/pdf/ey-the-other-looming-educational-debt-crisis-institutional-debt.pdf?download

[15] https://www.collegevaluesonline.com/colleges-changes-last-five-years/

[16] https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/course131/Eatonetal2020privateequity.pdf: what follows is taken from the same article.

[17] https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/what-we-do/policy-and-research/publications/opening-national-conversation-university

[18] https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/what-we-do/policy-and-research/publications/opening-national-conversation-university

[19] https://russellgroup.ac.uk/news/russell-group-warns-of-long-term-squeeze-on-uk-skills-pipeline/

[20] https://www.fenews.co.uk/skills/uk-universities-debt-burden-grows-50-in-five-years/; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1059056022002076

[21] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-64810537

[22] https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/23257565.university-east-anglia-set-make-job-cuts-loss/

[23] https://www.ft.com/content/25f803fd-f5cb-4577-8d86-f120ca03f6e3

[24] https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2021/09/01/why-the-government-should-never-bail-out-a-university/; https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2023/03/21/are-universities-really-at-risk-of-ending-up-in-the-public-sector/

[25] https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9387/CBP-9387.pdf

[26] https://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/content/news/employers-think-graduates-are-unprepared-for-the-workplace/;

[27] https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2021/02/09/more-young-people-are-taking-stem-subjects-than-ever-before/; https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-the-number-of-college-graduates-in-the-humanities-drops-for-the-eighth-consecutive-year/; https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/apr/4/focus-stem-education-killing-already-struggling-li/

[28] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-ibm-accenture-dell-companies-no-longer-require-college-degrees-2023-3?r=US&IR=T

[29] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/americans-are-increasingly-dubious-going-college-rcna40935; https://www.unit4.com/blog/the-us-and-uk-comparing-higher-education-in-the-two-top-ranking-nations

[30] https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2014/02/11/the-rising-cost-of-not-going-to-college/

[31] https://russellgroup.ac.uk/news/russell-group-warns-of-long-term-squeeze-on-uk-skills-pipeline/

[32] https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20210610150037741

[33] https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/what-we-do/policy-and-research/publications/lessons-pandemic-making-most; https://tallo.com/data-insights/what-high-school-college-students-want-higher-education/

[34] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1247949/annual-duolingo-net-income/

[35] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/03/22/pearson-once-leader-sells-its-online-services-business

[36] https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2021/09/jhj-edx-sold

[37] https://www.ft.com/content/0db12614-324c-483c-b31c-2255e8562910

[38] https://news.asu.edu/20190619-asu-edx-and-mit-announce-innovative-stackable-online-master-science-supply-chain-management

[39] https://edsource.org/2022/how-a-florida-public-university-helps-more-students-get-to-graduation/671805. What follows is taken from the article.

[40] https://eu.gainesville.com/story/news/education/campus/2019/09/09/uf-reaches-no-7-among-top-public-schools/3457664007/

[41] https://umdearborn.edu/news/how-arizona-state-reinventing-american-university

[42] https://heeap.org/news/us-news-and-world-report-ranks-asu-ahead-stanford-mit

[43] https://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Turning-Around-a-University-Lessons-from-personal-experience.pdf

Get in Touch


We have a number of specialised consulting services aimed at the public sector and universities. To find out more please get in touch below.

Contact - Africa

Subscribe to our insights

Blog Subscribe

Partner Spotlight: Faye Holland

by Faye Holland • 11 July 2025
Today, we are proud to be spotlighting Faye Holland, who became Managing Partner at Cambridge Management Consulting for Client PR & Marketing as well as for our presence in the city of Cambridge and the East of England at the start of this year, following our acquisition of her award-winning PR firm, cofinitive. Faye is a prominent entrepreneur and a dynamic force within the city of Cambridge’s renowned technology sector. Known for her ability to influence, inspire, and connect on multiple fronts, Faye plays a vital role in bolstering Cambridge’s global reputation as the UK’s hub for technology, innovation, and science. With over three decades of experience spanning diverse business ventures, including the UK’s first ISP, working in emerging business practices within IBM, leading European and Asia-Pacific operations for a global tech media company, and founding her own business, Faye brings unparalleled expertise to every endeavour. Faye’s value in the industry is further underscored by her extensive network of influential contacts. As the founder of cofinitive, an award-winning PR and communications agency focused on supporting cutting-edge start-ups and scale-ups in tech and innovation, Faye has earned a reputation as one of the UK’s foremost marketing strategists. Over the course of a decade, she built cofinitive into a recognised leader in the communications industry. The firm has since been featured in PR Weekly’s 150 Top Agencies outside London, and has been named year-on-year as the No. 1 PR & Communications agency in East Anglia. cofinitive is also acknowledged as one of the 130 most influential businesses in Cambridge, celebrated for its distinctive, edge, yet polished approach to storytelling for groundbreaking companies, and for its support of the broader ecosystem. Additionally, Faye is widely recognised across the East of England for her leadership in initiatives such as the #21toWatch Technology Innovation Awards, which celebrates innovation and entrepreneurship, and as the co-host of the Cambridge Tech Podcast. Individually, Faye has earned numerous accolades. She is listed among the 25 most influential people in Cambridge, and serves as Chair of the Cambridgeshire Chambers of Commerce. Her advocacy for women in technology has seen her regularly featured in Computer Weekly’s Women in Tech lists, and recognised as one of the most influential women in UK tech during London Tech Week 2024 via the #InspiringFifty listing. Faye is also a dedicated mentor for aspiring technology entrepreneurs, having contributed to leading entrepreneurial programs in Cambridge and internationally, further solidifying her role as a driving force for innovation and growth in the tech ecosystem. If you would like to discuss future opportunities with Faye, you can reach out to her here .
Cambridge MC Falklands team standing with Polly Marsh, CEO of the Ulysses Trust, holding a cheque

The Ulysses Trust Receives £10,000 Donation from Cambridge Management Consulting

by Lucas Lefley • 10 July 2025
From left to right: Tim Passingham, Tom Burton, Erling Aronsveen, Polly Marsh, and Clive Quantrill.
Long curving glass walkway looking out on a city. Image has a deep red tint and high contrast

Cambridge MC Achieves Platinum Status in a Leading UK Telecoms Consultancy Ranking

30 June 2025
Cambridge Management Consulting is delighted to announce that we have been recognised as a Platinum-level telecommunications consultancy in Consultancy.uk’s 2025 ‘Top Consulting Firms in the UK’ ranking. This achievement places us among an upper tier of telecommunications consultancies across the UK, reflecting our continued commitment to delivering exceptional expertise and results for our clients in this rapidly evolving sector. A Rigorous Assessment The Consultancy.uk ranking represents one of the most comprehensive evaluations of the UK’s consulting landscape, assessing over 1,400 firms across the country. This methodology combines extensive client feedback from more than 800 clients and peer reviews from over 3,000 consultants, alongside detailed capabilities assessments that examine the reputation of each firm, project track records, analyst benchmarks, industry recognitions, and thought leadership. Within the telecommunications sector specifically, over 500 consulting firms were evaluated, with only 50 qualifying as top players. The ranking system operates across five distinct levels – Diamond, Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Bronze; thus, Platinum status cements Cambridge MC as one of the most trusted, expert, and influential telecommunications consultancies in the UK. This recognition is particularly meaningful given the competitive nature of the UK’s telecommunications consulting market, where established global firms compete alongside specialist independents. Our Platinum ranking demonstrates that Cambridge MC has successfully established itself as a leading authority in telecommunications strategy, transformation, and innovation. Building on a Foundation of Success This latest accolade adds to Cambridge MC’s impressive collection of recent achievements and industry recognition. At The Consultancy Awards 2024, we were honoured to receive three awards, winning in every category for which we were nominated. These included: Digital Transformation: Acknowledging our project management of a multinational oil and gas company’s EV charging hub portfolio. Productivity Improvement & Cost Reduction: Celebrating our delivery of over £10m in savings for a major UK online retailer. Fastest Growing: Recognising our remarkable 30% revenue growth and expansion across new geographies. Beyond organisational achievements, our individual team members continue to earn recognition for their expertise and contributions. Zoë Webster, expert at Cambridge Management Consulting for AI, Digital & Innovation, was named among AI Magazine’s Top 10 AI Leaders in the UK & Europe. Furthermore, Craig Cheney, Managing Partner for Public Sector & Education, was made an Alderman of the City of Bristol, and Marvin Rees OBE, a member of our advisory board, was introduced to the House of Lords. Craig and Marvin were also co-founders of the Bristol City LEAP project, which recently received the World Economic Forum’s 2024 Award of Distinction for Public-Private Collaboration in Cities. This £1bn partnership between Bristol City Council and Ameresco UK represents a world-first initiative in sustainable urban development, demonstrating our capacity to deliver transformational projects with genuine societal impact. At the Forefront of Digital Infrastructure and TMT Our Platinum ranking in telecommunications specifically reflects Cambridge MC’s deep expertise across the full spectrum of Telecoms, Media & Technology (TMT) challenges. We work alongside TMT companies to optimise digital infrastructure and estates while delivering integrated cost reduction services that enhance procurement and contract management functions. Our capabilities span from digital transformation, procurement and network transformation to data centre optimisation and emerging technology integration. The telecommunications landscape continues to evolve rapidly, with exponential data growth, IoT deployment, and the infrastructure demands of generative AI driving substantial transformation in both virtual and physical infrastructure. Our team support organisations to stay afloat in this changing market, with a proven track record including managing over $5bn in client revenues, saving organisations over $2bn, and driving procurement transactions exceeding $5bn. Recent case studies demonstrate the breadth of our telecommunications expertise, from conducting technical due diligence for major investment decisions, to designing and procuring modern network solutions for leading academic institutions. Our work with the University of Bristol, helping them to complete their progressive Modern Network transformation, exemplifies our ability to navigate complex technical and commercial requirements, while delivering measurable outcomes. Looking Ahead As we celebrate this Platinum recognition, Cambridge MC remains committed to pushing the boundaries of what’s possible in telecommunications consulting. Ever since Tim Passingham founded Cambridge Management Consulting, to support telecommunications startups in the city of Cambridge, UK, our purpose has been to help clients make a better impact on the world. This mission drives everything we do, from individual product delivery to industry-wide transformation initiatives. This achievement belongs to our entire team of specialist practitioners who bring decades of hands-on experience to every engagement. As we continue to expand our capabilities and global reach, this recognition serves as both validation of our progress and motivation for the challenges ahead. Thank you to everyone who has joined us on this journey.
Wide angle photo of Pemrboke College on a sunny day

Tim Passingham Honoured as a Volunteer of the Year by Pembroke College, University of Cambridge

27 June 2025
Disclaimer: The text below was originally published on the Pembroke College website. Read the original post here to read the full article, including coverage of the award's other recipients, Duncan Rule and Ian Carry. 2025 Volunteers of the Year Announced Congratulations to Duncan Rule, Ian Carry and Tim Passingham (2022) whose contributions to Pembroke have been recognised in Pembroke’s Volunteer of the Year Awards for 2025. The award was introduced in 2022 to recognise not only the particular individuals who contribute their time and expertise for the benefit of the College and its community but also the value of volunteering itself. Duncan and Tim received their awards from the Master, Lord Smith of Finsbury, last week, with Ian set to receive his at the LEAP celebration event next term. Tim Passingham Since joining Pembroke as a William Pitt Fellow in 2022, Tim Passingham has become a highly valued member of the College community. A consistent supporter of the Corporate Partnership Programme, Tim has played a pivotal role in connecting students with real-world opportunities. Through his companies—Cambridge Management Consulting and partner firm edenseven—Tim has offered numerous internships to students on the LEAP programme, helping them build professional confidence and practical skills. Beyond internships, Tim and his team have supported LEAP students through reflective post-programme interviews, offering valuable feedback for both participants and the LEAP team. His impact is visible in many aspects of College life: from advisory work on the Milstein House sub-committee to generous support for Pembroke’s musicians, including the donation of a drum kit. Tim has also brought significant visibility to Pembroke within the wider Cambridge community. Under his leadership, the College was a key host during Cambridge Tech Week 2024, welcoming visitors for lectures, panels, and a Deep Tech Gala Dinner. Regularly using College spaces for high-profile meetings and team retreats, Tim has become a recognisable and influential figure around Pembroke—embodying the spirit of collaboration and innovation that the Corporate Partnership Programme aims to foster. On receiving this award, Tim said "when I was invested as a William Pitt Fellow in 2022, I stated that my desire was to give to the College and work hard to bring the worlds of Academia and Industry closer together. Since then, me and some of my team at Cambridge Management Consulting have supported numerous LEAP interns, sponsored our first PhD student at Pembroke, supported the CARA charity and initiative, supported the Mill Lane site programme, and given as much time and money as we have been able to support the Development Team and the growth of the College. I feel enormously honoured to receive this award which, for me, represents very much the beginning of a partnership which I hope will deepen and grow over many years to come. I look forward to the years ahead and to serving the College as we seek to continue to build on the incredible legacy of Pembroke by having a disproportionate impact for good on the world around us.”
A series of neon cubes in a line

Dealing with Disruptive Trends: How to Ensure Your Strategy Remains Relevant in a Period of Accelerating Change

by Mauro Mortali • 23 June 2025
Disruption now occurs with unprecedented regularity, as industries are upended not by traditional competitors but by unexpected entrants wielding innovative technologies and business models.  The difference between thriving and becoming obsolete increasingly hinges on your organisation's ability to anticipate and adapt to disruption before it's too late. The Ur-case of this was Blockbuster, who ignored the threat of streaming technologies, and specifically Netflix (which it could have bought), until it was far too late to pivot and catch up. Our article explores how businesses can develop strategies that offer predictions and agility, embedding creativity and insight into frameworks and actionable steps that plot a course through the disruptive landscapes of the next few years and beyond. Understanding the Nature of Disruption Disruption is no longer just a buzzword — or the philosophy of ‘break things and move fast’ that drove the early tech start-ups that now dominate our waking lives. The theory of disruptive innovation, popularised by Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen, explains how new technologies, products, or services can start small but eventually surpass established offerings in existing markets[1]. This process typically begins when smaller companies with fewer resources challenge established or traditional businesses by addressing underserved market needs[5] in new ways; usually with business models that bypass normal routes to market and allow these companies to scale at pace. Recent examples include: fintech banks that challenge the need for brick-and-mortar; online over-the-top media applications that replace the need for print media and traditional broadcast television; digital media and the success of subscription models, replacing physical media for music, films and other forms of entertainment; and platform apps like Uber, which connect us to a fleet of independent drivers who are paid per ‘gig’ and regulated by a ratings system. Today's notion of disruption is characterised by several key features: Accelerated Pace of Change The pace of disruption has accelerated beyond anything previously seen, with transformative technologies reaching mainstream adoption faster than ever[15]. While it took decades for technologies like electricity and telephones to achieve mass adoption, modern innovations like smartphones and AI have transformed entire industries in just a few years. Cross-Industry Disruption Disruptive threats increasingly come from outside traditional industry boundaries. Companies must now monitor not only direct competitors but also adjacent industries and completely unrelated sectors where transferable innovations might emerge[15]. For example, tech giants have disrupted financial services, retail, healthcare, and automotive industries without prior experience in these sectors. Technology-Enabled Business Models Today's most powerful disruptions combine technological innovation with business model innovation. Examples include: Platform models: Uber revolutionised transportation by connecting riders and drivers through a user-friendly mobile app, utilising independent drivers who pay for their own vehicles for rapid scalability[1]. Subscription services: Netflix and Spotify transformed entertainment consumption by shifting from physical media to on-demand streaming with personalised algorithmic content recommendations[1]. Direct-to-consumer approaches: Tesla's direct sales model bypassed traditional dealership networks while integrating advanced electric vehicle technology and autonomous capabilities[1]. From Traditional to Adaptive Strategy Traditional strategic planning approaches — characterised by multi-year roadmaps and rigid implementation plans — have become increasingly inadequate in today's fast-moving business environment. We look at some of the challenges businesses now face below. The Limitations of Traditional Strategy Conventional strategies often fail because they: Assume relative stability in market conditions Take too long to develop and implement Lack flexibility to respond to unexpected changes Rely heavily on historical data to predict future outcomes The Adaptive Strategy Advantage Adaptive strategy, often described as the "Be Fast" approach, emphasises agility, experimentation, and continuous evolution[3]. This approach thrives in fluid industries with high uncertainty and a fast pace of change, such as technology, fashion, entertainment, and start-ups[3]. Organisations that embrace adaptive strategies gain significant advantages: Higher profitability: Companies ranking high in adaptability enjoy up to 75% higher profitability than their less adaptive counterparts[10]. Faster market response: Adaptive firms achieve approximately 60% faster time-to-market compared to traditional competitors[10]. Innovation capacity: The ability to experiment boldly and rapidly iterate creates an environment where breakthrough innovations are more likely to emerge[10]. Real-World Adaptive Strategy Success Consider Netflix's journey from DVD rental service to streaming giant to content producer. Rather than creating a 10-year plan, Netflix constantly evolved based on emerging technologies, customer preferences, and market opportunities. This adaptive approach allowed them to pivot whenever necessary while maintaining their core value proposition of convenient entertainment access[1]. A New Framework for Ensuring Strategy Relevance To maintain strategic relevance amid disruptive trends, companies need a systematic framework that balances stability with flexibility. Anticipate Disruption Through Trend Analysis Successful businesses identify potential disruptions before they manifest fully by monitoring Hard Trends — future certainties based on measurable facts[15]. These include demographic shifts, technological advancements, and regulatory changes that provide predictable directional guidance. For example, financial services firms that recognised the Hard Trend of increasing digital connectivity were better positioned to respond to the rise of mobile banking and fintech disruption. Build your Agility Organisational structures and processes must be designed to support rapid adaptation: Decentralised decision-making: Empower teams closest to customers and market changes to make decisions without lengthy approval chains[3]. Cross-functional collaboration: Break down silos between departments to enable faster information sharing and coordinated responses to change[3]. Agile methodologies: Adapt software development approaches like sprints, continuous integration, and iterative testing to broader business strategy[3]. Foster a Culture of Innovation Innovation cannot be an isolated function — it must permeate your entire organisation: Encourage experimentation: Create safe spaces for testing new ideas with minimal bureaucracy and fear of failure[3]. Customer-centric innovation: Ground innovation efforts in a deep understanding of customer needs rather than internal assumptions[14]. Structured innovation processes: Establish clear pathways for moving ideas from conception to implementation while maintaining flexibility[14]. KPIs that support innovation: For example, looking at the value of a portfolio of innovations rather than a specific innovation project. Leverage Data & Technology Data-driven insights provide a vital competitive advantage in your disruption response: Real-time market intelligence: Deploy advanced analytics to detect weak signals of change before they emerge fully-formed[3]. Predictive modelling: Use Agentic AI to identify patterns and forecast potential disruptions[2]. Digital transformation lifecycle: Invest in the necessary expertise and infrastructure to undertake on-going programmes of transformation — a big step, and potentially expensive, but it can help immunise your business against disruptive technologies and new models. Practical Implementation Steps Translating disruption awareness into effective action requires specific tactical approaches.
Neon 'Open' sign in business window

5 Questions to Help SMEs with Their Cyber Security

by Tom Burton • 19 June 2025
SMEs make up 99% of UK businesses, three fifths of employment, over 50% of all business revenue, are in everyone's supply chain, and are exposed to largely the same threats as large enterprises. How should they get started with cyber security? Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SME) are not immune to the threat of cyber attacks. At the very least, if your business has money then it will be attractive to criminals. And even if you don’t have anything of value, you may still get caught up in a ransomware campaign with all of your data and systems made inaccessible. Unfortunately many SMEs do not have an IT team let alone a cyber security team. It may not be obvious where to start, but inaction can have significant impact on your business by both increasing risk and reducing the confidence to address new opportunities. In this article we outline 5 key questions that can help SMEs to understand what they need to do. Even if you outsource your IT to a supplier these questions are still relevant. Some can’t be delegated, and others are topics for discussion so that you can ensure your service provider is doing the right things, as well as understanding where their responsibilities stop and yours start. Q1: What's Important & Worth Defending Not everything needs protecting equally. In your personal life you will have some possessions that are dear to you and others that you are more laissez-faire about. The same applies to your digital assets, and the start point for any security plan needs to be an audit of the things you own and their importance to your business. Those ‘things’, or assets, may be particular types of data or information. For instance, you may have sensitive intellectual property or trade secrets; you may hold information about your customers that is governed by privacy regulations; or your financial data may be of particular concern. Some of this information needs to be protected from theft, while it may be more important to prevent other types of data from being modified or deleted. It is helpful to build a list of these assets, and their characteristics like the table below:
A heath-covered bay on the Falkland Islands

"I Am Safe": How Two Amateur Radio Enthusiasts Secretly Passed Messages During the Falklands War

by BFBS • 14 June 2025
To acknowledge and celebrate the end of the Falklands war on 14 June 1982, we are publishing this story about the unlikely friendship of two amateur radio enthusiasts 8,000 miles apart that allowed more than 50 soldiers the opportunity to get messages home to their loved ones. Disclaimer: This story was originally brought to light by bfbs Forces News on 7 December 2022. Certain linguistic changes have been made in the subsequent article from Cambridge Management Consulting, but all of the information comes from the original article, written by Hannah King Ros Moore, which you can read here , and an accompanying video on their YouTube page, which we encourage you to watch . Between April and June 1982, Argentina and the United Kingdom engaged in a 10-week conflict which would come to be known as the Falklands War. Battling over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and its territorial dependency, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict began with the invasion of the former by Argentina on 2 April, and ended with their ultimate surrender on 14 June – Falklands Liberation Day. During this time, more than 100 villagers were being held captive in a hall by the Argentinians for almost seven weeks, before being free on 29 May by 2 PARA, following a battle to take Goose Green. Eighteen British soldiers were sadly lost during this fight, but back at home their families had heard nothing since the soldiers set sail. That was until the unlikely friendship of two amateur radio enthusiasts 8,000 miles apart allowed more than 50 soldiers the opportunity to get messages home to their loved ones. Bob McLeod, a ham radio operator, had already made history by making the announcement to the world that the Falkland Islands had been invaded. However, in doing so, he had also drawn the attention of the Argentinians, who were quick to confiscate his equipment. Alan Bullock was the Forward Observation Officer of D Company, 2 PARA, and, while walking through the main street of Goose Green, spotted an antenna on a house belonging to Bob. Alan knocked on Bob’s door, “Hello… is there any chance you are a radio amateur?” “Yes… But the Argentinians took my transmitter and smashed it up.” Bob’s wife then suggested that they use his 50W amplifier that was safely hidden under the stairs. As Forward Observation Officer, Alan had his state-of-the-art at the time, military clansman radio, which, although only 20 watts for communicating over short distances, could be combined. In order to get messages back to the UK, Bob made contact with John Wright, a radio amateur in Oxford with whom he had been chatting to over the airwaves for many years. Together, Bob and John devised a cryptic code for their conversation and each transmitted on different frequencies, in case anyone was listening. John would be given a soldier’s phone number and short messages to pass on to his family. John said of the plan: “Normally amateur radio enthusiasts talk about their radio equipment, experiments they’re doing. “In this case, the communication was to pass family traffic which, under normal circumstances, isn’t allowed, but I threw caution to the wind and did what I could as quickly and clandestinely as possible.” Word quickly got around the troops and soon it wasn’t just D Company’s families Bob and John were contacting. Before long, there was a queue outside Bob’s door, with each message always the same: "I am safe." About BFBS BFBS is a pioneering military charity with a mission to entertain, inform, connect and champion the UK armed forces, their families and veterans. Our armed forces do a tough yet invaluable job, often working in extreme conditions – so BFBS believes they deserve our unfailing support. Find out more at: https://about.bfbs.com/ The Positive Impact of Telecommunications This story, and the combined initiative, intuition, and innovation between Allan Bullock, Bob McLeod and his wife, and John Wright, is testament to the transformative power of technology for forging connection and bringing optimism at times of difficulty, danger, and otherwise disconnect. This story is particularly inspiring for Cambridge Management Consulting as an organisation currently working hard to enhance the telecommunications and technology infrastructure of the Falkland Islands. For more information about how we are achieving this, you can read about our consultancy work on the Islands here , and the opening of Falklands IT here .
Orange and white spotlights on a purple stage

Partner Spotlight: Simon Crimp

by Jon Wilton • 6 June 2025
Welcoming Simon Crimp Cambridge Management Consulting is delighted to welcome Simon Crimp as Managing Partner and Lead for our Digital Transformation practice. With more than 25 years of international technology leadership, Simon joins us at a pivotal moment as our clients seeking to drive meaningful change across their portfolios. His extensive experience spans hands-on technology operation and engineering, setting global technology strategy, and C-suite advisory, positioning him as a powerful asset for businesses navigating the next wave of digital innovation. Simon began his career in the demanding world of capital-markets technology, supporting trading floors at JP Morgan and managing service delivery across major exchanges. This early immersion laid the groundwork for a deep technical understanding and an ability to deliver resilient, high-availability systems in some of the world’s most high-pressure environments. His next chapter at Euronext LIFFE (now part of ICE Futures Europe) saw him rise through the ranks from service management to become Global Head of Systems Engineering. There, he was instrumental in delivering two state-of-the-art data centres and modern trading infrastructure, ensuring the reliability and resilience required by global financial markets. The next decade of Simon’s career took him to IG Group, where he led the transformation of infrastructure and operations on a global scale. As Head of Infrastructure & Operations and later Regional CTO and Global Head of Shared Technology Services, Simon architected IG’s pioneering hybrid cloud strategy, orchestrating seamless integration across AWS, Google Cloud, and multiple colocation facilities. He didn’t just modernise technology, he reshaped how teams operated, leading over 400 technologists across regions, managing a significant budget, and redesigning operating models to accelerate delivery while enhancing security and compliance. Notably, Simon developed IGs Security Operations and Cyber Defence function, further strengthening the company’s posture in a fast-evolving threat landscape. His versatility was clear during his tenure as Interim CEO and Head of the Japan Office, where he secured C-level buy-in for localisation and expansion into new markets. Before leaving IG in 2024 Simon developed the Data Strategy for the company and led build out of the Data and AI capability into GCP. Beyond his technical and commercial expertise, Simon has invested in leadership development, qualifying as an Executive Coach at Henley Business School. This enables him to drive not only digital transformation, but the cultural shifts essential for lasting impact. This helps organisations embed agile, product-focused ways of working alongside technology renewal. Reflecting on his decision to join Cambridge Management Consulting, Simon shares: “I’m really excited to get the opportunity to take 25 years of technology and organisational transformation across Finiancial Services and Fintech into new industries and markets. Cambridge MC has had great success since opening its doors, and I’m thrilled to be part of the leadership team that will drive the next phase of growth.” In this new role he will lead end-to-end digital transformation programmes — from initial vision and business case to execution and ongoing improvement. He will focus on orchestrating cloud-first, data and AI strategies, embedding modern operating models, guiding post-merger technology integration, and advising boards on security, compliance, and the adoption of emerging technologies. Whether your organisation is looking to modernise legacy estates, scale digital operations globally, or embed new ways of working, Simon Crimp and the Cambridge Management Consulting team are ready to help drive value at any stage of the programme. To connect with Simon and explore how he can support your digital transformation journey, reach out to us at info@cambridgemc.com or scrimp@cambridgemc.com
Murky gloom under the sea with light rays piercing from above

The Critical Role of Backhaul Management in Submarine Network Topology & Operations

by Andy Everest • 28 May 2025
Introduction In today's interconnected world, submarine cable networks form the backbone of global communication, enabling the seamless exchange of data across continents. While these undersea cables are the epitome of engineering marvels, their effectiveness hinges not only on the ‘wet' network in the seabed, but also on the often-overlooked terrestrial network backhaul. The terrestrial backhaul — the infrastructure that connects submarine cable landing stations to inland data centres and networks — is as crucial as the submarine network itself. Proper management and handling of terrestrial backhaul partners is essential to ensure the optimal performance, cost-efficiency, and security of all submarine networks. The Vital Importance of Backhaul Management Submarine networks are only as strong as their weakest link, and the terrestrial backhaul is a pivotal link in this ecosystem. Without a well-designed and managed backhaul, even the most sophisticated submarine network can face inefficiencies, bottlenecks, and vulnerabilities.  Key reasons why managing terrestrial network backhaul partners is so critical include: Cost Optimisation Terrestrial backhaul costs constitute a significant portion of the total network expenditure. Poorly negotiated contracts or suboptimal supplier relationships can inflate operational costs, diminishing the overall profitability of submarine networks. Network Performance The design, quality, and reliability of terrestrial backhaul networks directly affect latency, throughput, and overall user experience. A poorly managed partner ecosystem can lead to performance degradation, affecting service delivery. Security and Risk Mitigation The terrestrial segment is often more vulnerable to physical and cyber threats compared to submarine cables. Effective partner management ensures that security measures are prioritised, and risks are mitigated. Scalability and Flexibility As data demands grow, submarine networks must scale effectively. Well-managed terrestrial backhaul partners enable seamless scaling and adaptability to meet changing requirements.
More posts