O3.5.2

=Institutional e-learning technology plans undergo a formal (re)assessment of risk when any significant e-learning technology failure occurs.=

Evidence
Kowszun & Struijve (2005) report on guidance for risk assessment in e-learning projects. Using research from IT projects and pilot e-learning studies they discuss the main project risks in e-learning. These include general IT risks such as insufficient human resources, unrealistic schedules and budget, unrealistic expectations, incomplete requirements, and late delivery of software among several others specific to e-learning. They provide an extensive table of sources of guidance for each risk identified and conclude with a literature review of recent and current literature on risk management.

Course designs include consideration of alternatives to be used by teaching staff when technology fails and ensuring there are support procedures in place to deal with potential failures.

Resourcces
Coen et al. (2004) describe a Risk Management framework for E-learning, the MIT90s model, which has been used to examine how higher education institutions in Australia were managing the introduction of technology to delivery and administer education (Yetton, 1997). Cohen et al. then detail six case-studies of the implementation of MIT90s. They describe how to implement the framework in higher education in general.

Merna and Al-Thani (2008, p69-84) identify a range of tools and methods that can be used to identity risks including brainstorming, assumption analysis, Delphi, hazard and operability studies, and failure modes and effects criticality analysis. Identified risks can be further analysed using checklists, prompt lists, risk registers, risk mapping, probability-impact tables, risk matrices, and project risk management road maps. A range of quantitative techniques can be used to identify risks of time or budget issues including decision trees, Monte Carlo simulations, sensitivity analysis, and probability-impact grid analysis.