M25 LTG Summer Meeting: “Innovation versus Security”

M25 LTG Summer Meeting: “Innovation versus Security” The M25 Learning Technology Group returned for its Summer Meeting themed “Innovation versus Security” on 9th July 2026 at Birkbeck, University of London and online. Alex Speirs (King’s College) welcomed attendees in person while Sue Harrison (King’s College) facilitated online. The afternoon included practical activities, sector updates and strategic discussions, with a particular focus on cyber security, accessible procurement and the role of professional communities in helping institutions navigate an increasingly complex digital education landscape. Cyber Crisis: University Under Attack Lucy Bamwo (Imperial College) ran the first activity of the afternoon Cyber Crisis: University Under Attack. The interactive cyber security simulation placed participants in a simulated university cyber incident. Working in small groups and assigned institutional roles, attendees responded to an unfolding crisis affecting core systems including Microsoft infrastructure, VLE platform and lecture capture. As the scenario developed, a suspected ransomware attack raised concerns about service disruption, data compromise, examinations, coursework deadlines and increasing student enquiries. Participants were required to make decisions under pressure, including whether to inform students, which systems should remain online, how leaders should be briefed and whether assessments and teaching could continue. Discussions highlighted the tension between containing the incident and maintaining teaching and learning activities. A key theme was the importance of communication. Participants agreed that timely updates and clear messaging are critical to maintaining trust and reducing misinformation. The exercise also demonstrated how different institutional roles bring distinct priorities, underlining the need for collaboration during major incidents. Drawing on real-world experiences during the debrief, participants reflected that cyber resilience is an institution-wide responsibility requiring coordinated action across IT, academic and professional services teams.  The toolkit for the simulation is available here until 31/12/2026. ———————– Digital Accessibility Starts at Procurement  The second presentation, delivered by Sarah Sherman, Director at Bloomsbury Learning Exchange explored the challenges of embedding digital accessibility into procurement. Using real supplier responses to accessibility questions, Sarah highlighted common issues, including accessibility being offered at extra cost, reliance on overlays rather than accessible design, poor understanding of legal obligations, and accessibility features being absent from product roadmaps. The session highlighted how accessibility testing often occurs late in procurement, placing significant demands on internal specialists. Participants also discussed how suppliers frequently focus on student-facing interfaces while overlooking accessibility barriers in staff-facing workflows. A central theme of the presentation was the Accessibility Passport, developed through the Make Things Accessible project. Designed as a practical framework for procurement, it provides shared tools and resources that institutions can adopt rather than developing their own approaches independently. Resources include: Standard contract wording Procurement guidance Tender evaluation criteria Accessibility matrices Eight key questions for suppliers The aim is to create greater consistency across the sector, helping institutions set clear expectations and encouraging suppliers to improve accessibility standards. Discussion focused on the benefits of collaboration between institutions and the need for stronger partnerships between accessibility specialists, learning technologists, procurement teams and senior leaders. Participants agreed that accessibility must be considered throughout the procurement lifecycle rather than treated as a final compliance check. ————————————- The what, how and why of UCISA Representation work  Natalie Lafferty, Head of Representation and Policy at UCISA, provided an overview of UCISA’s representation work and explained how concerns raised by member institutions are translated into collective conversations with suppliers and sector bodies. The presentation made a call for the Digital Learning communities to reach out to UCISA to seek involvement and participation. It offered valuable insight into how universities can work together when facing common challenges. UCISA’s process begins when institutions identify issues relating to suppliers, services or broader sector concerns. Where similar issues arise across multiple institutions, UCISA facilitates discussions, gathers evidence and, where appropriate, establishes representation groups to engage directly with suppliers on behalf of members. Natalie highlighted a range of concerns that have featured prominently in recent months, including: Significant software price increases. Lack of transparency around licensing models. Service outages and reliability concerns. Product roadmap issues. Contractual disputes. Data protection and security incidents. One particularly interesting aspect of the discussion was the role of representation groups. Rather than conversations being conducted solely by UCISA staff, member representatives participate directly, ensuring that supplier discussions remain grounded in the experiences of institutions. This approach creates opportunities for institutions to exert greater influence collectively than they might individually. Unsurprisingly, cyber security formed a significant part of the discussion. Natalie outlined the growing number of supplier-related data breaches and security incidents that have required sector-level engagement. These incidents have highlighted the importance not only of vendor security but also of understanding the wider supplier ecosystem upon which many digital products depend. As institutions increasingly rely on cloud-based services, third-party integrations and AI-enabled platforms, supply-chain resilience in the digital learning infrastructure is becoming an increasingly important consideration. The discussions looked beyond immediate incident response towards longer-term improvements in procurement, risk management and governance. Attendees heard about emerging work around cyber resilience, supplier accountability and the need for institutions to understand how vendors manage security testing, reporting and incident communication towards Digital Learning teams and services. Accessibility was also recognised as an area of increasing importance within sector representation work. Natalie highlighted ongoing conversations regarding the Accessibility Passport with UCISA and noted the sector’s growing appetite for stronger accessibility expectations within procurement frameworks. Sustainability emerged as another area likely to receive greater cooperation and coordination in the future. Participants discussed how environmental considerations might eventually become embedded within procurement processes for all digital platforms as well as security and accessibility requirements today ——————————– Two years and six iterations of the same module: The costs of embedding AI literacy amidst rapid educational change The talk, delivered by Amy Aisha Brown (University of Portsmouth), offered a useful practitioner perspective on the importance of embedding AI literacy across the institution. While there was a strong recognition that students need opportunities to understand, question and use AI responsibly and critically, the session also highlighted that effective implementation requires more than simply introducing new tools or guidance. AI literacy needs to be designed into the learning experience with clear institutional expectations, appropriate timing and a well-considered implementation plan. As GAI continues to develop rapidly and disrupt established approaches to teaching, learning and assessment, clear and consistent communication can help both staff and students develop a shared understanding of what responsible AI practice looks like, even as technologies and expectations continue to evolve. One potential risk highlighted was the tension between students’ enthusiasm for AI literacy and the potential for confusion when expectations differ across modules, programmes or teaching teams. A more systematic approach could therefore include a clearly phased AI literacy programme, supported by communities of practice where educators can share emerging approaches, challenges and examples of effective practice. Greater coherence at institutional and programme level would help students encounter consistent messages while still allowing disciplines to contextualise AI use appropriately. In this sense, the speaker called for a coordinated pedagogical environment in which students can build confidence, critical judgement and responsible AI practices over time. ———————– The Summer Meeting highlighted both the challenges and opportunities facing learning technology professionals. Cyber security incidents can rapidly become institution-wide crises, accessibility remains a significant procurement challenge and supplier relationships are growing increasingly complex. Across all these themes, however, participants emphasised the value of collaboration and shared approaches to common problems.institutions are stronger when they work together. By sharing expertise, coordinating action and learning from one another across roles and institutions, universities are better placed to develop future digital Learning environments and practice. Listen to the recording on audio recording (.mp3). The Next M25 LTG meeting will take place on the 5th November 2026 at King’s College London.