Recent coverage of the University of Glasgow has rightly prompted concern across the higher education sector. The story, reported by BBC News, centres on serious shortcomings in how complaints were handled and escalated, culminating in an independent peer review by the Quality Assurance Agency.
This is not an easy read. Nor should it be.
Behind the governance language and procedural findings are real people. Students and staff who expected concerns to be heard clearly, handled consistently, and resolved fairly. Instead, the review describes fragmentation, unclear ownership, and processes that did not operate as intended, even where the intent itself was sound.
It would be easy to frame this as a story of individual failure or institutional neglect. That would be a mistake.
UK universities are operating in a uniquely high-stakes environment. They face rising demand, intense public scrutiny, financial pressure, regulatory complexity, and heightened expectations around transparency and accountability. Decisions are rarely abstract. They affect wellbeing, trust, and long-term outcomes.
In that context, the Glasgow case highlights a familiar pattern we see across higher education:
None of this suggests a lack of care. It suggests systems that have not kept pace with the reality they now carry.
It is tempting to respond to cases like this by tightening policy, adding oversight layers, or issuing new guidance. Some of that will be necessary. But the peer review makes clear that documentation alone does not guarantee consistency, visibility, or confidence.
This is where digital transformation is often misunderstood.
The challenge is not “better technology” in isolation. It is how people, process, data, and governance work together in moments that matter most. Complaints handling, safeguarding, case management, and escalation pathways are not back-office admin. They are trust-critical systems.
When they fail, legitimacy is damaged long before efficiency is questioned.
At Crimson, we work almost exclusively in sectors where failure is visible and personal. Higher education is one of them.
Our position is clear.
Transformation must be:
We believe technology should reduce ambiguity, not add to it. It should help staff do the right thing consistently, even under pressure. And it should make it easier for leaders to see when systems are drifting before harm occurs.
That is why we start with outcomes and risk, not platforms. Why we challenge respectfully when processes are unclear. And why we stay invested beyond go-live, because governance failures rarely show up on day one.
Tom Cadman, Digital Transformation Director, Crimson, said:
"When systems that are meant to protect people become hard to navigate, even well‑intentioned organisations can lose trust. Technology should make it easier to do the right thing under pressure, not harder. That means designing processes and data flows around real human moments, not just compliance checklists."
The Glasgow review should prompt reflection across the sector, not fear. Most universities recognise these risks already. Many are actively trying to address them. What this case shows is the cost of partial fixes and fragmented ownership in environments where clarity really matters.
Digital transformation in higher education is no longer about speed or modernisation alone. It is about trust, legitimacy, and the ability to stand behind decisions with confidence.
That is the standard Crimson holds itself to. And it is the conversation we believe the sector now needs to have.
Mum says Glasgow University ‘failed’ son who took his own life after grade error - BBC News