What a business case is for
A business case is a structured way to decide whether an investment is worthwhile. It lists the benefits and costs, states the assumptions and risks, and explains how success would be judged. For a school, college or university, the investment in question is adopting open educational resources, usually shortened to OERs: teaching and learning materials that are free to use and that carry a license allowing reuse and often adaptation.
A good business case is not a sales pitch. It should help decision-makers reach a sound choice, including the choice not to proceed or to proceed in a limited way.
The arguments in favor
Lower costs for students. When required materials are replaced with open alternatives, students may avoid purchasing them. For a course with many enrollments, this can add up to a meaningful sum. The effect is usually most visible where students face high costs for core texts. This matters for access, because cost can influence whether a student buys required materials at all, and it relates to the broader question of textbook costs in the student experience.
Day-one access. If every student can reach the material from the first class, teaching can start without waiting for purchases or deliveries. Instructors often value this.
Control and adaptability. Staff can update, shorten, localize or combine materials to fit their syllabus. They are not tied to the schedule of a commercial publisher’s new editions.
Pedagogical flexibility. Openly licensed content allows activities in which students contribute to or revise materials, an approach often called open pedagogy.
Reputation and mission. Many institutions value being seen as supporting access and sharing knowledge. Some funders and governments also encourage openness.
Reuse across the institution. A resource developed for one course can be reused or adapted by others, reducing repeated effort over time.
The costs and risks
A credible case includes the following.
- Staff time. Selecting, reviewing and adapting resources takes hours. Where staff are already overloaded, this may be the most serious barrier.
- Development and production. Where no suitable open resource exists, creating one costs money for writing, editing, design and review.
- Technology and hosting. Digital resources need platforms, storage, accessibility features and support.
- Quality assurance. Open material varies. Institutions need a review process, and a bad resource can harm the institution’s reputation.
- Maintenance. Content ages. Without a plan, updates are neglected.
- Training. Staff may need help understanding licenses, finding resources and using them well.
- Lost income. If the institution runs a bookstore or shares revenue on textbook sales, adoption may reduce that income.
- Equity of access. Students without devices or connectivity may be disadvantaged by digital-only resources. Printing options or offline copies may be needed and carry costs.
Putting numbers on it, carefully
An institution can build a simple model. Take the number of students in affected courses, estimate the average cost of the materials they would otherwise buy, and estimate the share who would actually buy them. Then compare student savings with the institution’s added costs for staff time, support and upkeep.
A purely illustrative sketch: if 1,000 students each avoid a purchase of 60 currency units, the headline saving is 1,000 × 60 = 60,000. If only 70 percent would have bought the item, the realistic saving is 0.7 × 60,000 = 42,000. If the institution spends 15,000 on staff time and support, the net benefit to the community is 42,000 − 15,000 = 27,000. These figures are invented, and a real calculation would use the institution’s own data and tested assumptions.
Notice that most of the saving here goes to students, while most of the cost falls on the institution. A business case should be clear about this, because it determines who has an incentive to act. Some institutions treat student savings as part of their mission, while others need a separate argument based on retention, satisfaction or access.
Benefits that are harder to measure
Some potential benefits cannot be counted easily and should be described as possibilities, not promises.
- Better preparedness when all students have the material from the start
- Improved retention or course completion because of reduced financial pressure
- Improved teaching quality through adaptation
- Stronger institutional reputation
Evidence on learning outcomes is mixed. Some studies suggest that students using open materials perform about as well as those using commercial ones; others find differences that depend on course and context. The effects on retention and completion are an area of ongoing research and are hard to isolate. It is wise to measure your own outcomes and avoid assuming improvement.
Options between all and nothing
A business case does not have to be all-or-nothing. Institutions might choose to:
- start with a few high-enrollment courses where costs are greatest
- offer small grants or time allowances for staff who adopt or create OERs
- build on existing open collections rather than writing from scratch
- adopt a policy that encourages but does not require openness
- review progress after a set period
A pilot allows testing of assumptions before wider commitments.
What to measure
Define success in advance. Possible measures include number of courses using OERs, estimated student savings, staff time spent, student and instructor satisfaction, and course outcomes compared with earlier years. Track costs as carefully as benefits.
A balanced recommendation
For many institutions, adopting OERs in selected courses is a defensible choice, with clear benefits for students and potential benefits for teaching. It is not free of cost, and the case depends on local circumstances, available resources and staff capacity. The strongest business cases are honest about the costs, modest in their claims and built to be tested.
This is general information, not financial or legal advice.