European university alliances funded by the European Commission have emerged in the 2020s as strategic drivers of higher education development (European Parliament 2025). Their ambitious vision is to create a seamless virtual campus where students can log in with a single username, browse the entire alliance’s course offering, enrol in studies across borders, and have their achievements automatically recognised. In the short term, this vision runs into significant technical, legal, semantic, and organisational obstacles, which are examined in this article.

Laurea is part of the PIONEER Alliance, consisting of ten European higher education institutions. At present, partner institutions show varying levels of maturity in digital systems and electronic processes. Finnish higher education institutions are already relatively harmonised at the EU level and manage most operations digitally (CSC 2026), while in some European institutions processes may still be manual or supported by fragmented systems (European Commission 2025a).

Technology alone is not enough

Alliances rely on multiple interconnected systems: learning management systems (LMS), identity management (IdM), student information systems (SIS), current research information systems (CRIS), and credential management (European Commission 2025a). In many cases, these systems still do not communicate smoothly with one another. Challenges tend to rise in three areas:

• ·Shared authentication and user management. Many alliances use eduGAIN/SAML or OIDC-based authentication. However, roles (student, staff, visitor) and access rights are interpreted differently across institutions, leading to service interruptions at system boundaries. The European Interoperability Framework recognizes identity and access management as a priority area where standardisation and contractual harmonisation are still ongoing (European Commission 2025b).
• Shared visibility of course data. “One-stop-shop” course catalogues often stumble over the fact that course metadata, schedules, and update cycles vary between institutions, leaving automation incomplete. An EUA report (2024) characterises limited automation as a key bottleneck to scalability.
• Exchange of achievements and credentials. When grades and micro-credentials move across countries and systems, technical and semantic inconsistencies arise (e.g. grading scales, credit calculation, competence descriptions). For this reason, shared solutions must be aligned with EU-level reference architectures and standards (including eIDAS and digital credentials) (Futurium 2022; European Commission 2021; European Parliament 2024).

Legal realities: GDPR requires work

Data protection and public-sector information governance determine what data can be shared, for what purpose, and under which agreements. The challenge is not only the “strictness” of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), but also national interpretations and approval processes, which vary by country—particularly regarding freely given, specific, informed, and documented consent by the data subject (European Parliament 2016). This makes automated data exchange (such as transfer of study records) difficult and forces alliances to build contract and consent paths case by case. EU guidance and the interoperability framework emphasise the need for shared model agreements and reference processes to reduce administrative friction (European Commission 2025b).

A shared vocabulary

Even when data is exchanged successfully, meaning is not always preserved. Concepts such as course, module, micro-credentials, and ECTS credits are not fully comparable across systems and national contexts. A recent synthesis report covering over 40 alliances highlights how semantic differences inhibit automation and require shared vocabularies and schemas (e.g. competence descriptions, learning outcomes, workload) (European Commission 2025a). The Commission’s inventory identifies gaps in existing standards and recommends common terminologies for different use cases.

Organisational friction: processes, responsibilities, and transformative leadership

Universities differ more in practice than may appear externally. Registration, assessment, quality assurance, and recognition processes do not align automatically—and information systems reflect these differences. EUA analyses (2024) and reviews of the European Universities Initiative (Gunn 2025) emphasise the importance of governance and transformative leadership: without shared decision-making structures and service ownership, technical projects risk remaining isolated pilots.In addition, long-term funding and specialist resources (architects, integration experts, data protection lawyers) directly limit the pace of progress.

Infrastructure scalability and cybersecurity

A shared virtual campus requires not only integrations but also scalable and secure platform infrastructure. Alliances apply diverse implementation models: centralised hubs, distributed integration layers, or catalogue-based approaches that synchronise data in multiple directions. Each model involves trade-offs between cost, performance, and manageability. Workshop materials and conference presentations (e.g. EuroTeQ/EPICUR; Pho & Parker 2025) stress multi-layer interoperability—technical, organisational, and cultural—where security and identity issues cut across all layers.

Financial realism

Many alliances have successfully piloted impactful digital services. However, the real challenges emerge when moving from pilot to production and managing years of technical backlog, especially when institutional IT systems have not been aligned early enough and key actions have been postponed or only partially implemented. The long-term financial sustainability of alliances is critical to prevent platforms, integrations, and support structures from deteriorating between funding cycles. A European Commission report (2025c) notes that the quality of IT governance—good or poor—has substantial implications for education and mobility. Sustainable solutions require both continuity of funding and strong institutional commitment.

Research infrastructures and RIM environments

Education and research are becoming increasingly integrated within alliances. Research Information Management (RIM/CRIS) adds another interoperability layer: publications, projects, datasets, and equipment inventories are increasingly linked to teaching (e.g. research-based learning and data-driven courses). Materials from the euroCRIS community (2025) highlight CERIF compatibility—a common model for describing and exchanging research information (European Commission 2019)—as well as the need to connect national CRIS systems at alliance level.

The interoperability framework provides practical tools

The European Commission’s analysis (2025a) of more than 40 alliances offers a current and realistic overview of priorities for aligning IT architectures. The European Higher Education Interoperability Framework (European Commission 2025b) defines eight core use cases—from application to credentials—and provides reference architectures, process diagrams, and shared vocabularies. Its strength lies in practicality: common pathways for identity, course data, and learning achievements—not merely recommendations, but implementable approaches.

Next steps

Architectural decisions regarding information systems must be made carefully and strategically. Alliances need to agree whether data flows through a central service, a distributed integration model, or if it is delivered simultaneously to multiple consumers. These choices should align with EU-recommended architectural principles (European Commission 2025b). Defining both the ownership and the service quality metrics of services is equally important, ensuring a shared understanding of responsibilities and service levels across partners (Ewerlöf 2024).

Identity and role management require a common foundation. Shared role and attribute profiles—such as the eduPerson specification with alliance-specific extensions—support consistent user experience and security (eduPerson 2023). To minimise security risks, users should be granted only necessary access rights, complemented by agreed usability and security policies that scale across the ecosystem.

Standardising course metadata and schedules is another key development area. Alliances should adopt a shared schema covering learning outcomes, workload, and assessment methods, alongside harmonised update cycles. Automating catalogue synchronisation is essential, as manual maintenance quickly becomes a bottleneck and slows down interoperability. (Distance Learning Institute 2025).

Competence-based credentials and recognition of learning achievements must also rely on a trust framework. Competence data should be linked to eIDAS-compliant signatures, with defined interfaces and procedures for grade conversion. EU’s reference process flows provide a concrete starting point (Futurium 2022; Ariño 2025).

To enable alliance-wide deployment of systems and processes, legal frameworks must also be prepared in advance. Shared data processing agreements, privacy notices, and transferable consent models significantly reduce administrative burden and are identified in EU reports as prerequisites for scalable alliance operations (European Commission 2025a).

Finally, long-term funding and access to expertise must be secured (UP University Alliance 2025). Shared alliance services, tools, and operating models can facilitate knowledge exchange and reuse of solutions among partners (Haji Mohammadali et al. 2025).

Why this matters now

Alliances have already increased student and staff mobility and expanded joint course offerings—but processes that are partially manual do not scale. Reviews by the European Commission and independent bodies show that the faster we move toward shared data models, identity solutions, and contractual frameworks, the more likely it is that the virtual campus will become reality.

Ultimately, technical interoperability is an exercise in trust and collaboration—this applies equally to PIONEER Alliance partners. By sharing vocabularies, processes, and code—and by agreeing on roles and responsibilities—digital friction will gradually start to disappear. At that point, students can truly move freely, teachers can co-create courses without bureaucracy, and universities can focus on what they do best: enabling learning and research (Pho & Parker 2025). To reach this point, PIONEER partners must carry out determined development work in the coming years to build shared digital practices and interfaces. Once this is achieved, the same services and data flows can be seamlessly used across all partner institutions.

Author information:

Dr. Mika Launikari, M.Sc. (Econ.), works as a Leading Expert at Laurea University of Applied Sciences and participates in the development work carried out within the European PIONEER University Alliance.

References

• Ariño, L. 2025. European Digital Credentials for Learning (EDCL) – Europass and eIDAS2. DC4EU. Accessed 28 January 2026.
• CSC 2026. Digivisio 2030. Accessed 28 January 2026.
• Distance Learning Institute 2025. Metadata Standards for Reusable Learning Objects: Ensuring Interoperability. Accessed 28 January 2026.
• eduPerson 2023. Standards and Specs – REFEDS. Accessed 28 January 2026.
• euroCRIS 2025. The international organization for research information. Accessed 28 January 2026.
• European Comission 2025a. An analysis of the state of interoperability across Higher Education systems in Europe. Accessed 28 January 2026.
• European Comission 2025b. Interoperability framework: innovating cross-border learning and collaboration in higher education. Accessed 28 January 2026.
• European Comission 2025c. Report on the outcomes and transformational potential of the European Universities initiative. Accessed 28 January 2026.
• European Comission 2021. Recommendation of 3.6.2021 on a common Union Toolbox for a coordinated approach towards a European Digital Identity Framework. Accessed 28 January 2026.
• European Comission 2019. Common European Research Information Format. Accessed 28 January 2026.
• European Parliament 2025. European Universities alliances – a model of strengthened cooperation. Accessed 28 January 2026.
• European Parliament 2024. Regulation (EU) 2024/1183 of 11 April 2024 amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 as regards establishing the European Digital Identity Framework. Accessed 28 January 2026.
• European Parliament 2016. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation GDPR). Accessed 28 January 2026.
• European University Association EUA 2024. Developing common learning opportunities through interoperability: The status and outlook for European higher education. Accessed 28 January 2026.
• Ewerlöf, A. 2024. Service Level Terminology. Accessed 28 January 2026.
• Futurium 2022. European Digital Identity Architecture and Reference Framework – Outline. Accessed 28 January 2026.
• Gunn, A. 2025. The European Universities Initiative: Accomplishments and Challenges. Accessed 28 January 2026.
• Haji Mohammadali, F., Alcober, J., Roma Gomez, A., Lopez-Rubio, J. & Oller Arcas, T. 2025. The European university alliances challenges and acceleration services solutions. In: 11th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’25). Valencia, 17-20 June 2025. Accessed 28 January 2026.
• Pho, D. & Parker, B. 2025. Interoperability within the European University Alliances (EuroTeQ/EPICUR). Accessed 28 January 2026.
• PIONEER Alliance 2026. Accessed 28 January 2026.
• UP University Alliance 2025. Towards Financial Sustainability in European University Alliances: The UP University Approach. Accessed 28 January 2026.