Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Information and communication technology (ICT) has become increasingly central to university academic management, yet its contribution to management efficiency depends on how institutional actors experience and use digital systems in their routine work. This study examined ICT-supported academic management efficiency at Uganda Christian University (UCU), Uganda, with specific attention to perceptions of ICT-supported academic records management, academic task efficiency, and factors influencing effective ICT use. The study adopted a qualitative approach underpinned by interpretivism and employed an instrumental case study design. Fifty-two participants comprising senior academic managers, university registrars, ICT staff, quality assurance officers, and academic staff were purposively selected. Data were collected through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions and analysed thematically using inductive and deductive procedures informed by the Technology Acceptance Model and Systems Theory. The findings showed that ICT improved the storage, retrieval, and verification of academic records and reduced dependence on paper-based processes. Participants also associated ICT with faster report generation, marks processing, communication, student advising, and academic follow-up. However, these efficiency gains were conditional on accurate and timely data, stable internet connectivity, adequate system capacity, appropriate user permissions, system integration, practical ICT training and responsive technical support. The study concludes that ICT-supported academic management efficiency at UCU is a socio-technical outcome rather than a consequence of technology availability alone. The study recommends continuous and role-specific ICT training, improved system reliability and internet infrastructure, stronger data governance, better integration of academic information systems, appropriate role-based access, and responsive technical support to sustain improvements in academic management efficiency.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Asiimire et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: