O9.1.1

=E-learning initiative resource allocation is explicitly linked to the institutional e-learning strategies and technology plans.=

Evidence
E-learning’s increasingly significant role in educational operations and effects on overall policy is directing more attention to how e-learning criteria influence the promulgation and implementation of policy (de Freitas and Oliver, 2005). de Freitas and Oliver’s recent study concluded that e-learning policy does drive organisational change in both human and technical resource areas. They advise care when considering strategic development to ensure that the extent and effects of change are appreciated and understood, ‘so that the benefits and pitfalls of introducing e-learning across a higher education institution can be analysed and shared more effectively’ (p. 94). Factors that de Freitas and Oliver raise include: Organisational structure and scale; previous e-learning experience; extent of investment required; organisational experiences of others; professional consultation; benefits of inter-/intra-institutional collaboration; and, critical evaluation strategies.

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.

E-learning is an educational evolution, rather than an add-on, that requires a complementary approach to the integration of its manifold, complex, and dynamic elements and processes into institutional strategies and plans. The influence of information and communication technology (ICT) on the reconceptualisation of higher education organisation, administration, and teaching and learning, has been apparent for some time (Anderson and Elloumi, 2004; Bates, 1988, 1997; Duderstadt et al., 2003; Dutton and Loader, 2002; Laurillard, 2002; Ramsden, 2003). Dutton and Loader (2002), refer to not only ‘the administration and services of higher educational institutions…being transformed [but also] the whole environment…not just the classroom, but teaching, learning, managing and obtaining services…being increasingly embedded in electronic resources’ (p. 7).

As Davis (2004) explains, successful implementation of e-learning is ‘based upon a good understanding of an institution or company’s core business and values, of the nature of the intended student market, and of the needs of the curriculum’ (p. 101). He also considers the importance of managing change, noting that the usual dynamics of educational change are further complicated by online activities: ‘Because online learning technologies evolve as quickly, and often as unexpectedly, as do the curriculum, students’ expectations and connectivity, etc., the ability to manage change effectively is important’ (p. 110). Davis summarises the qualities needed for an effective infrastructure as: ‘a healthy working environment, with committed staff, where implementation can proceed, and where constant change is understood to be the norm’ (p. 113).

Arguing the importance of competitive advantage to e-learning strategy development, Elloumi (2004) proposes a value chain analysis approach to assess external and internal competitive opportunities and effects: ‘value chain analysis facilitates the strategic management of an organization’ (p. 84). Benefits of using this approach include the ability to show that it is ‘serving specific public needs identified in its mission statement…. and to demonstrate its ability to manage its operating systems successfully by delivering a quality service to the public served’ (p. 89).

Reporting on a case study into organisational change relating to e-learning, de Freitas and Oliver (2005) conclude that e-learning policy significantly affects institutional change beginning with ‘organizational redevelopment (whether formally through staffing structures or informally through locally negotiated changes in staff roles)’ (p. 94). They add, however, that this process is dynamic and complex and needs to be subject to negotiation between all parties.

Resources
Evidence of capability in the practice is seen through the alignment of e-learning investments with institutionally developed and endorsed e-learning strategies and technology plans. Important elements include a formal business development plan along with a detailed risk assessment and mitigation strategy. All staff involved in the design, (re)development and delivery of e-learning projects and initiatives need to be involved in the development of these plans and strategies and fully aware of the implications for their own work. The plans and strategies need to be dynamic documents building on a growing evidence base of locally relevant initiatives and projects linked with formal reviews, evaluations and quality assurance outcomes.

Examples of E-learning Strategic plans: University of Sydney http://www.usyd.edu.au/elearning/documents/planning/SydneyeLearning2008-2010StrategicPlan.pdf

University of Wollongong http://www.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@spq/documents/doc/uow046341.pdf

Bristol University UK http://www.bris.ac.uk/elan/

Strategic Planning for e-Learning in a Polytechnic http://www.tonybates.ca/2008/07/21/strategic-planning-for-e-learning-in-a-polytechnic/

Implementing an institutional e-learning centre: guiding notes and patterns http://www2.tisip.no/E-LEN/documents/ELEN-Deliverables/Guidelines_for_ELEN_centers.pdf

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.