Last summer I assumed a new role as Airworthiness Training Team Lead. My section (in conjunction with a contractor and the learning technology section) was at the tail end of completing a 3-hour distance learning course introducing the basic concepts of airworthiness. As I was new to the job, I was briefed on where we were in the project (making modifications based on feedback from a pilot course) and what still needed to be completed (translation and implementation in French). Within several months, we had finished the modifications to the course following our initial pilot and were ready to “soft-launch” the course (a “hard-launch” where we actively advertise could only be completed once the course is available in both official languages).
We received positive feedback from most people that took the course, unfortunately some key specialists were not consulted on the course content during its creation. There were some personality conflicts between the specialists and my predecessor (which may have been why there was no consultation). These specialists were justifiably offended at not being consulted and upon review of the course, noted specific errors in the content. As the course had already been sent to translation, this required fixing and tracking the errors in the English version and fixing the errors in the French version after translation. In addition to these issues, the course was handed over to my section for maintenance as part of the original plan, but it was designed in a software version which initially had limited access. This caused delays in fixing the errors in the English version.
Conway, Masters and Thorold (2017) stress that it is important to understand the power dynamics in a system when you are completing a change. In retrospect, I should have completed a more thorough review of the project when I took it over to determine if there was anything that was initially overlooked. Although the project did have a project plan which included consulting specialists regarding the course content, somehow these particular specialists, key stakeholders in the project, were missed during the implementation. The project could not be successfully completed until the concerns of these key stakeholders were satisfied (A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide), 2017). To address these issues in the future, an additional person separate from the project team could be used to review the stakeholders to ensure that no key stakeholders were missed.
Additionally, it was not recognized when our section assumed responsibility for the course maintenance that we did not yet have access to the required version of the software the course was written in. This was the closure of that phase of the project and transfer to on-going operations and should not have occurred until the transition could be completed successfully (PMBOK guide, 2017). Termed “Evergreening” by Norman (2017), a plan for ongoing upkeep and maintenance of online courseware is required. In the future, the courseware files should be shared prior to the transfer of responsibility so that our section can verify that we have all of the files and can access and modify them.
Despite these issues, the course is already enabling new personnel to immediately learn the basics of airworthiness wherever they are stationed and most students have responded to course surveys with positive feedback. So, although there have been some lessons learned from the project as described above, it is meeting the goals and vision for the project.
References:
A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide). (2017) (6th ed.). Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Conway, R., Masters, J., & Thorold, J. (2017). From Design Thinking to Systems Change, (July), 32. Retrieved from https://www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/reports/rsa_from-design-thinking-to-system-change-report.pdf
Norman, D. A. (2017). Lessons learned : AV systems design in the Taylor Institute. [blog post]. Retrieved from https://darcynorman.net/2017/03/11/lessons-learned-av-systems-design-in-the-taylor-institute/
Personal Reflections – Project Management – Unit 3, Activity 1
Hi Lorri,
I enjoyed reading your post. You mention that “These specialists were justifiably offended at not being consulted and upon review of the course, noted specific errors in the content”. I have been in this situation as well where we were designing an online course. We consulted a couple of subject matter experts, but the one’s we did not consult were offended and were very critical of the content we produced. I defended this by saying that due to cost and time constraints, it was impossible to consult everyone. Did you encounter this type of a situation?
Steve
Hi Steve!
Sorry to reply so late in the course! This must have slipped by me when I was on holiday!
In answer to your question, yes, that is the situation I inherited. The SMEs legitimately should have been consulted though in my case (as they are the experts in that subject). We have sorted things out now though, so the course has been corrected and the SMEs are happy.
Thanks for taking the time to comment!
Lorri
Your post also reminded me of a project I inherited when I took on a new role in healthcare. The elearning course was near completion but had remained near completion for over a year. The consultation process had become so lengthy and involved that no one was able to give a final go-ahead to the content. At first, I thought it would be easy to resolve by getting all the specialists into a room. At that frightful meeting, it became apparent that power struggles and difficult personalities were threatening to derail the entire process. I asked for a deadline for their final changes and sign-off on the content. Most complied, a few did not. I launched the course with the confidence that I could at least say I had given everyone a chance. The course was an initial success but because it was so detailed, it quickly contained out-dated material and similar problems arose when we sought to make updates. At some point, you are fighting against what is ultimately a management problem and the work to get these people to work as a team has to take place at a senior or corporate-wide level. It becomes about change management rather than project management.
Hi Carrie,
That is a very good point! Now that we have the change management framework it is good to be able to see things through that lens as well. Sorry to be so late in my response! I think I was on holiday at this time (or flying back).
Thanks for your feedback!
Lorri