This week I will reflect on the process of moving our face-to-face program into an online format. Our program operates in a remote/rural area of BC. The numbers of inhabitants within our catchment area did not support the sustainability of our program anymore, especially not with the competition of more accessible programs in larger cities. During the “initiation phase” (Watt, 2014, p. 21) of this project, with the intent to attract larger numbers of students, we decided to solve this “tame problem” (Conway, Masters & Thorold, 2017, p. 14) by going entirely online.
This decision did not only serve an institutional goal of larger student numbers, but it also addressed accessibility for the remote/rural student who is working full time and needs to upgrade or continue their education. We hoped the creation of a fully online program would impact several stakeholders (Conway, Masters & Thorold, 2017). Stakeholders were employers seeking trained workers, students wanting to get training within their home communities, families unable to access services due to a shortage of qualified workers, faculty and institution seeking to gain sustainability from an increase in enrolment.
Once the faculty team decided to go entirely online, we explained the validity of the project to management. We were fortunate in that the political climate, supported by massive media uptake, brought strong support to our project (Conway, Masters & Thorold, 2017). An acute shortage of trained workers was acknowledged, and financial support programs to support students to access training was put into place by the government. We received support for our project, chose a faculty support person and moved to the “planning phase” (Watt, 2014, p. 21) to put a project plan in place.
Our project plan included a clear timeline of project completion, a list of tasks to be completed and identification of supports to be in place for the project to be successful (Watt, 2014). The faculty support for the project was also the person with the most training and knowledge in online learning environments. At the time this seemed sufficient to support the process, on hindsight I would say because the faculty support also was involved in the physical design of several courses, the time available to assist other team members was limited. During the “implementation phase” (Watt, 2014, p. 22) this resulted in some misalignment between courses, as instructors were drawing on their interpretations on how to engage students in online learning. We are currently in the process of addressing this issue, which will be time-consuming and will need sensitivity as not to discourage instructors. For further projects, I would suggest the faculty support is not responsible for the physical creation of courses but solely focuses on supporting instructors during the implementation phase. The project had a very narrow time frame for completion, and the team continued to communicate with each other to ensure the meeting of timelines, but there was no time for any formal reporting (Watt, 2014). We entered the “closing phase” ( p. 22) of the project successfully and started to roll out our fully online program in the fall of 2018.
As a team we did not consciously choose a planning method for the project before us, however, after reading Watt (2014), “Human Resources” within “resource planning” (p. 91) most aligns with the focus of our process. We spent considerable time deciding who would take on which aspects of the project and based our decisions on the skill sets available in our team (p. 97). Considering the short timeframe and the successful closing of our project, I would have to agree with Watt’s (2014) statement “[t]he most important resource to a project is its people” (p. 97). I had the privilege to be part of a well functioning team that was highly motivated to bring the project to completion. Given a choice, I would choose resource planning again as a focus in project management. Additionally, our process aligns well with the “Four C Framework” (University of Calgary, 2014) of “connecting, communicating, collaborating and creating” (p. 36). We certainly moved through all four of these elements as we delivered this short term project to its closing phase. As is described by the University of Calgary (2014) in their Strategic Framework of Learning and Technology, we considered “societal trends [and the] context of the [College]” (p. 36) when we solved our problem. We had to take into consideration the “technological infrastructure [available, and choose] learning designs and learning technologies” (p. 36) to enhance our new online programs. All this considered, in my next project I would choose a human-centred focus and apply the Four C Framework.
References
Conway, R., Masters, J., & Thorold, J., (2017). From design thinking to systems change: How to invest in innovation for social impact. Royal Society of Arts, Action and Research Centre.
University of Calgary, Learning Technologies Task Force. (2014). Strategic framework for Learning Technologies.
Watt, A. (2014). Project Management. Victoria, BC: BCcampus.
That sounds like a very ambitious and exciting project Anita. I agree with you and Watt (2014) that resource planning of the utmost importance in planning for a project (p. 97). It sounds like you were part of a well-functioning team; however, you mentioned that one individual’s time was quite scarce during the development phase. I am thus wondering how involved the team members were in creating the project schedule? As a team member, I appreciate when teams get together to create a schedule based on how long each team member thinks it will take them to complete their tasks and how much capacity they have. Although this team-oriented style of planning is common in project management styles such as scrum methodology, where the team is empowered to do a lot of the planning and schedule development (Watt, 2014, Scrum Development Overview, p. 25); in reality, I find that teams often inherit a schedule or a deadline which could certainly cause some issues with scarce resources.
References
Watt, A. (2014). Project Management [PDF]. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/projectmanagement/
Hi Jessica, thank you for your thoughtful reply. Our team was in charge of the timeline but the team support person also was dealing with their own workload of teaching, therefore focus on the project was often divided between regular work and project work. I think a more focused approach would have prevented some of the misalignments we are experiencing now. You were correct in your assumption that we were given a deadline for the project at the very start. It was a tight and very ambitious deadline and as a team, we were proud to have made it happen. Another element missing from this project experience was the presence of an actual team leader, someone who is “delegated [to] decision-making” (Watt, 2014, p. 107). All decisions in the described project were made by the whole team, which sometimes slowed down the process.
Reference
Watt, A. (2014). Project Management. Victoria, BC: BCcampus.