O1.1.1

=Resources for all e-learning initiatives are allocated according to formally defined criteria. =

Evidence
Shackelford (2007) claims that the single most common cause of e-course project failure is failure to treat them as proper projects. All the common project management principles must be employed. This includes defining the project scope, identifying project roles, keeping stakeholders informed, conducting risk assessments, gathering information on what is working and what is not, and applying that information in re-development. Shackelford lists eighteen pitfalls to avoid when project managing e-course development.

Provision of expert technical and pedagogical assistance is vital if institutions are to move away from ad-hoc developments in e-learning. Like any other scarce resource, expertise in e-learning development within an institution must be managed in a way that ensures efficient and effective use. Formal criteria which align the use of these resources with defined outcomes for the institution are essential in this process (Hagner, 2000).

A systemic approach to developing a strategic plan that coherently integrates elements in a timely way is needed: ‘it is not sufficient to select elements…in a fragmented or ad hoc manner’ (Garrison and Anderson, 2003, p. 109). Bates and Poole (2003) discuss the value of project management when undertaking complex information technology and education projects. They argue that the process defines project management, and that includes: ‘a defined set of resources…a timeline, and a clear “deliverable,” in that it is clear what the project has to achieve and it is obvious when it is completed’ (p. 143).

According to Davis (2004), the needs of students and the course learning outcomes underpin all teaching and learning systems; therefore planning ‘flows from a full understanding of these two fundamentals’ (p. 99). Although e-learning is new to many, Davis considers that it is sufficiently mature for coherent, pragmatic planning decisions to be made: ‘plenty of research and information is available, and there are many successful examples of online learning systems to learn from’ (p. 113).

Comparing policies to traffic laws or language syntax, Simonson and Bauck (2003) discuss how the growth of e-learning is increasing the need for guiding policy frameworks (p. 418). Citing previous online/distance learning policy research (Berge, 1998; Gellman-Danley and Fetzner, 1998; King et al., 2000), Simonson and Bauck discuss an accepted model that categorises seven policy areas: Academic; fiscal, geographic, and governance; faculty; legal; student; technical; and, philosophical/[and cultural] (pp. 418-9). They argue that online/distance education policies need to be integrated with face-to-face policies, to make plain that ‘distance education is a routine and regularly occurring component of the educational enterprise’ (p. 424).

Evidence of capability in this practice is seen in the provision of formal funding and resourcing criteria and guidelines, mandated by policy, which provide consistency and clarity in the allocation of resources. Access to support is managed by these criteria to ensure efficient and equitable use of time and the achievement of strategic goals as well as short term requirements. Effective approaches in the local context are communicated through examples, case studies, standards and guidelines, customised for the institution, that demonstrates the benefits of the criteria used.

Resources
Ellis et al. (2007). Managing quality improvement of eLearning in a large, campus-based university. Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 9–23

Bates (2007) explains that institutions must plan to allocate resources for e-learning. In his case study the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology it was decided that significant increases in numbers of instructional designers, multimedia developers, and faculty development facilitators was going to be required. Also, a matrix model to manage the resources of the Centre for Instructional Technology and Development was recommended. Each year a committee would determine how to allocate the CITD resources to departments according to service agreements.

Shackelford (2007) provides an eighteen point checklist for elearning initiatives. An older version of his recommendations is found here: http://www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/Resource_library/proceedings/02_69.pdf

Bristol University has a documented elearning strategy and online development resources: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/elan/

A specific example of allocating staff support resources is found in Kelly (2007) who describes a matrix used by the Manukau Institute of Technology’s Academic Development Unit to determine what support teaching staff will require for their e-courses. Courses are scored on ten dimensions on a 1-5 scale of degrees of blended/distributed course delivery. Mostly 1s and 2s require ‘Level One’ CMS/Web use training. 3s and 4s require Level Two training. 5s require signed institutional approval for the re/developed mode of delivery change, also formal staff development in e-learning teaching is required. Overall it is important to aim support at the level that staff are at. Generic support may not help.