Week 6: Analyzing Scope Creep

There have really only been a few professional projects that I’ve been associated with, but I think scope creep and rear its ugly head in just about any activity that involves even a modicum of planning. I think of when I plan for a trip to Minnesota for a visit and it seems that whenever I begin the planning for said trip, scope creep shows up.


I live a long distance away from my home state, and whenever I get the chance to go back, there are dozens of activities I want to participate in, dozens of faces I’d like to see again, and dozens of places I’d like to visit that it’s literally impossible to do everything in the traditional week I normally have to spend. Every trip I take is an auto-negotiation process, often ending in disappointment for not only me, but for others in the state that wanted to see me as well. One can only accomplish so much in one trip, or one project if you’ll allow me the stab at relevancy, so it’s important for the trip planning/project manager to recognize the limitations and try to maximize the use of the resources at hand. It’s a “natural tendency of the client, as well as project team members, to try to improve the project’s output as the project progresses (Portney et al., pg 346, 2007),” so in my case of planning for a trip, it’s obvious I want to see everyone at do it all. It’s also extremely important for me to control that natural tendency and recognize limitations, no matter how difficult the decision may be to forgo a desired element of the plan. The role of the project manager is rarely an easy one, offering loads of responsibility for little recognition (Portney et al., 2007), but someone has to make the difficult decisions, and this ultimately falls to the project manager.

Inherent within the importance I’ve been prattling on about is the need for effective communication between project team members, project manager, and all important stakeholders. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure (Laureate Education, 2010),” so tactful yet firm “no’s” are essential, so long as the stakeholders, team members, and all involved are informed. I can’t see everyone I want to see when I’m back in Minnesota, and I realize that; it’s important for me to, however painfully, explain to some that it’s impossible for me to meet the demands requested of me with a firm yet friendly no. I’ll make a point to see these people next time, but in order to resist scope creep, I need to limit the activity of each trip/project, and be as up-front and forthcoming as possible. If I don’t, I’ll never make it back to my life in Arizona in time to resume my life there, although, would that really be much of a loss??



References:

Laureate Education. (2010). Video media presentation retrieved December 9, 2010, from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=4603377&Survey=1&47=5918289&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Week 3: Communicating Effectively

The same, exact message in three distinct forms. It’s pretty amazing how the exact same words can be delivered in three different tones through three different mediums. I reacted completely differently from one modality to the next, and it’s strange to feel such different sensations about the same message in different formats in such a short period of time. Here’s what I thought:


• Email: I personally preferred the email modality of the request, and email is really the form of communication I use most in my job. The formality of the email, being in written form, seems to drive home the urgency of the request more effectively. The email is very well written, which I also prefer, and gives a couple of suggestions as to how Jane’s request can be fulfilled. The written email is respectful of Mark’s time (“I know you’ve been busy;” “I really appreciate your help.”), and explains exactly what is needed and why. Plus, the request is documented and a communication stream can be preserved, in writing, between Mark and Jane. If Mark emails back stating that Jane will have the report by 3pm, a written record of that promise is created and Jane has something to hold Mark to, or show management as explanation for her late report if Mark backs out on his promise.

• Voicemail: I found this the worst modality of the three. The tone of voice on the recording was flippant and whiney, and, depending on office size, if Jane wants to talk to Mark regarding the ETA of the report, why call and not just stop by his cube? Also, speaking from personal experience, it’s very easy to ignore voicemails. Just a quick delete of the message and it’s out of mind.

• Face-to-face: I appreciated this modality as well; not quite as much as email, but pretty close. Jane shows commitment to the request by physically stopping by Mark’s cube. The face-to-face method also gives a chance for instant feedback to be given by Mark: “Sure Jane, I’ll have that report to you by 3pm.” By having the face-to-face, Jane puts Mark on the spot a little bit, but is able to get a quick answer. After the face-to-face, to further cement the request, Jane can follow up with Mark with a quick email to confirm the delivery time. As stated several times in this week’s video media, always document the information communications (Laureate Education, 2010)!

When working with team members in the future on projects, I really will keep phone communication to a last resort. With so much opportunity for distance face-to-face with Skype and other video conferencing technologies, phone calls/conference calls are becoming obsolete. The video media this week also classified which communication methods should be used as an reflection of the importance of the information being shared: “Important communication is best delivered with all team members present (Laureate Education, 2010),” so in-person or video conferencing is best in these situations. For follow-ups, informal communications, or clarifications, email works best to detail conversations and document these conversations in writing.


Reference:

Laureate Education. (2010). Video media presentation retrieved November 17, 2010, from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=4603377&Survey=1&47=5918289&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

Project Autopsy - What Killed "im, Doc?

I created a financial aid tutorial for my team of enrollment advisors once about a year ago, and for the most part, it was a modest success. Basically, I created a PowerPoint taking them through the process a student goes through to accept his financial aid award through the myWalden page so that the team could better assist students through the process itself should they need it. The idea was to increase student support and customer service, and at the same time benefit the enrollment advisor by increasing total Talk Time, a metric used for review purposes on a quarterly basis. The tutorial was about twenty-five slides long, included screenshots of my own student financial aid account, and navigated the user through all aspects of the financial aid acceptance process, from locating the documents to exactly what those documents looked like (i.e. Master Promissory Note, Entrance Counseling, etc). There were elements that were successful and others that were not so successful, and with a firmer grasp of project management concepts, I think I could’ve did a little better job.

First, the good news. My team was able to see the financial aid process through the eyes of a student, and got some very useful insight into the documents needed for completion of the process as well as some topics of conversation to bring up with students on the phone to guide them through. The PowerPoint wasn’t too long, and included enough screenshots of an actual student financial aid account to graphically tell the story as opposed to an endless sea of bullet points. I also included back and forward buttons in the presentation so the user could navigate backward as well as forward in order to access earlier slides for review. I heard good things from my team initially; they stated that the presentation looked good, took a smooth and steady course through the brass tacks of the acceptance process, and allowed for an acceptable freedom in navigation without stranding the user. From the feedback I did acquire, the team was able to glean useful information from the presentation, and for that reason, I can be confident of some level of success with it.

While the team found value in the presentation, there could have been improvements made. From a project management stand-point, I think the organization of the project itself could’ve been better defined. I was the only one working on the project, but that shouldn’t mean that a well defined Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and/or Linear Responsibility Chart (LRC) was/were unnecessary. A WBS would’ve detailed a “hierarchical representation of all work to be performed in [the] project (Portney et al., pg. 86, 2007),” and would’ve have given me a concrete plan to approve or revise. With a well defined WBS, an LRC may be superfluous in this instance, especially considering all work would be assigned to me, but the LRC might have helped to schedule the work and prioritize the elements of the project. The LRC could have also helped to organize my duties as I assumed different roles: As the project manager, a task would have been to approve the WBS, and an LRC could’ve helped me to track that approval; as a task leader, a duty would be to approve completion of an element of the presentation, and the LRC would allow for this approval to be concretely represented. The whole idea behind these documents is to create a sense of organization and accountability, so even though I was the only employee on the project, value can still be found in the process of creating and utilizing the documents themselves.

So, while the project wasn’t a total bust, more organization from a PM perspective could’ve brought the financial aid tutorial project to new levels of utility. Now that the concepts of project management have been revealed to me (and as they continue to be revealed), I can only imagine how useful they will become on future projects, solo or otherwise.


Reference:

Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Week 8: Reflection on the Future of Distance Learning

Distance learning is the future of education at not only a higher education level, but at a K-12 level as well. In this day and age of advanced communications systems, global economies of scale, and multi-national corporations, the world as we know it gets smaller and smaller by the day. Corporate operations teams are spread across nations, but miss little in the way of communicability. Synchronous communications technologies are at levels previously unimagined, able to reach across vast distances with efficiency and practicality. Education is in a similar place with regard to delivery. No longer is education confined to ivy-covered buildings and hallowed halls, but is accessible to virtually anyone with an Internet connection. Flexibility, accessibility, and convenience are at an all-time high in education, with the only perceivable restrictions residing in the court of public opinion. Distance learning is on the rise, and has been proven to be as effective, if not more effective, than traditional education; but, opinion varies as greatly as the various forms distance learning can take. The future and potential of distance learning resides in this public opinion, and it will be the job of the instructional designer to design, develop, implement, and evaluate effective distance learning, thereby eliciting the buy-in of academia and helping to bring distance education to its full fruition.


Perceptions of distance learning in the near future will change dramatically, and this will be due to the graduation and employment of distance learners. The only way to truly prove that distance learning is just as good, if not better, than traditional education is to show what distance learning graduates can do in the workplace. I think that what society will find is a distance learner that is very well adjusted to operating within a technology-driven environment. Distance learners will be quite accustomed to communicating with coworkers and facilitators across vast differences, and this will prove valuable in wide-spread, multi-national business. Gone are the days of deals being consummated by way of a hand-shake. Corporate America must operate in virtual environments, and who better to do so than folks who have done their learning in these same environments. Once these distance learners have proven what they can do professionally, perceptions of distance learning as a whole will improve.

But what of distance education itself? How can the overall quality be maintained and improved in the short term to produce these new-age wunderkinds? This is the job, now and in the future, of the instructional designer. By adhering to sound instructional design practice, creating student-centered learning environments, and fostering collaborative and informative opportunities for not only students but instructors alike, the instructional designer will guarantee the successful and accepted future of distance learning. Instructional designers must work closely with SMEs, educational facilitators, and communications infrastructure professionals alike to ensure that the instructional message is applicable and practical to conventional professional practice, that facilitators and instructors understand the new role they play in distance learning, and that distance learning is supported by the strongest and most fail-safe systems. At the nexus of these players lies the future of distance education: A well conceived, practical, learner-focused environment that produces savvy, collaborative, and motivated professionals. An instructional designer does not have all the answers, but is well served to act as a project manager and facilitator in her own right of the multiple personalities and opinions in the instructional design process. A healthy, collaborative, and comfortable environment is not just important to learning environments, but in the design environments of these learning systems.

At the end of the day, the successful instructional designer will always first ask the question, “is a learning intervention necessary?” The second question, if the answer to the first question is yes, is “what does the environment that will best serve the learner look like?” If the situation is right for a distance learning initiative, then the instructional designer will further explore the climate and, keeping in mind the needs of the learner, create the best-fitting environment possible. Maybe that environment is asynchronous? If it is, the instructional designer must make sure to communicate the responsibilities of the learner and facilitator alike: That the learner must take responsibility for his own learning, and the facilitator must take a more active role in collaborations (Simonson et al., 2009). If a synchronous environment proves to be the best fit, then the instructional designer must make sure all technological ingredients are available, and if advanced technologies are at the disposal of the instructional designer, that her designs allow for the training of its users, if need be. As long as the end user is considered in all design decisions, then effective distance learning environments will be created. When effective distance learning environments are created, then those learning environments will produce well-trained and confident professionals. When these well-trained and confident professionals hit the workplace and show what they can do, then the perception of distance education will improve dramatically as a result. With this improvement in public perception in place, the sky is the limit for the continued future of distance education as a whole.



Reference:



Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Week 7: Converting to a Distance Learning Environment

The Application assignment for the week was an interesting one, and one I chose to create in a newsletter style.  I felt that short, succinct articles highlighting and describing to essential parts of the assignment would be beneficial to a facilitator looking to convert a face-to-face learning environment.  The articles describe best practices, and the newsletter is short, only three pages in length.  The size is intentional as to not overwhelm the facilitator and to make a handy guide that can be consulted at any time of the design, development, and/or implementation phase.  But, why explain when the document can explain itself?  Enjoy.

Week 5 - The Impact of Open Source

http://oyc.yale.edu/

The idea of free education provided by a prestigious institution like Yale University seems almost too good to be true. In an effort to “make an important contribution to expanding access to educational resources through the use of internet technology (http://oyc.yale.edu/about ),” Yale has made available course content and lectures from an array of undergraduate course offerings. While these materials are provided free of charge online, it is here that the similarities to true distance learning end. Instead of providing an online learning opportunity, Yale is simply distributing course materials for use in other, in-class, synchronous classrooms. Consumers of this material are given a syllabus, links to recorded lectures, and downloadable resources, much of which is incomplete due to licensing difficulties. Learners within Yale’s open course environment are essentially on their own if “auditing” an available class; a better format would be to implement the available syllabus and materials into a traditional classroom. This, however, has nothing to do with distance education; instead, Yale has dumped face-to-face course information online with no structure to learning, and certainly no pre-planning or intentional design for distance education.

Simonson et al. (2009) warn against this dumping practice. “The term shovelware has evolved to describe this practice: Shovel the course onto the Web and say you are teaching online, but don’t think about it much (pg. 248).” This really is precisely what has happened here; a bunch of learning material has been plopped onto an open source site and left to be used in whatever way seems good to an instructor. There is no structure to the learning events, other than a chronological order of topics as described in the syllabus; there is no grading criteria or point structure; nor are there any timeframes within which the course is to be completed in. Is it a semester-based course? A quarter-based course? Can the course be extended over multiple terms, or is it better served to be completed within one term? Suffice it to say that the open courses provided by Yale are not finished products; there is much work to be done once the decision to use the material has been made.

There is no online component to the courses at all. In order to construct distance learning opportunities around the provided materials, an instructor would have to work with an instructional designer extensively to build, from scratch, the entirety of the online learning environment. There are discussion topics described in the learning materials (for example: http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/introduction-to-ancient-greek-history/content/resources/02darkages ) but no platform upon which to conduct the discussions themselves. This requires the incorporation of a threaded discussion forum which will have to be contracted from another source, or built on-site for substantial cost. Regardless, this is a process in and of itself to be undertaken without any suggestions from Yale. Let’s take a look at a few recommendations from Simonson et al. (2009) regarding online learning to illustrate how far away the Yale open courses are from true distance education:

 “Students can work at their own pace.”

 “Online course materials, once developed, are easy to update, providing students access to current information.”

 “The Internet can provide a student-centered learning environment, if the materials and methods are designed to take advantage of the interactivity and resources the Internet provides.”

 The Internet promotes active learning and facilitates student’s intellectual involvement with the course content.”

 A well-conceived online course provides a variety of learning experiences and accommodates different learning styles.” (pg. 234-5)

The Yale open courses as they stand now offer none of these advantages typically afforded by effective online learning. The structure of the materials is ambiguous and mundane, as well as old-fashioned and teacher-centered. The courses do actually do a good job of offering access to materials anywhere, anytime by allowing for lectures to be downloaded via iTunes to mobile devices, but this is the only interaction the student has with the material; there is no inherent active learning opportunities for “small-group discussions, hands-on experiences with materials available in advance of the class period, or similar types of classroom strategies (Simonson et al., pg. 192, 2009).” While a great idea, the Yale open courses are quite obviously not designed for distance learning. To be transformed into a format viable for distance education, much work will need to be done by instructional designers and course instructors; so much so that a decision needs to be made whether or not to adopt the learning materials in the first place.


Reference:

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Week 3: Selecting Distance Learning Technologies

First and foremost, here is the example I chose to discuss in this posting:

Example 1: Collaborative Training Environment


A new automated staff information system was recently purchased by a major corporation and needs to be implemented in six regional offices. Unfortunately, the staff is located throughout all the different offices and cannot meet at the same time or in the same location. As an instructional designer for the corporation, you have been charged with implementing a training workshop for these offices. As part of the training, you were advised how imperative it is that the staff members share information, in the form of screen captures and documents, and participate in ongoing collaboration.

It's a fairly well known fact that I am not only a student at Walden but an employee as well.  Walden's structure is much like the structure of the example above, in that there are multiple sites scattered all across the country.  There are enrollment advisors in all sites, in all time zones, and we often need to learn similar material at different times.  While the collaboration of our trainings doesn't match well to the example, I think the Walden model, properly modified, would serve well to act as a template for the development of the training workshop for the hypothetical company.
 
Since the staff of the hypothetical company cannot meet at the same time at the same location, it would seem that an asynchronous training platform would be a good fit for this workshop.  That way, staff can come and go to and from the workshop on their schedules.  However, the corporation has also made very clear to me as the instructional designer that collaboration between staff members is essential, that information sharing is crucial, and that this collaboration be on-going.  These requirements, to me, scream Web 2.0, and the employment of such technologies would serve the corporation well.  "In the early 2000s, a new generation of web applications emerged, tools that are highly participatory and promote collaboration, networking, sharing, and the widespread generation of content (Simonson et al., pg. 244, 2009)."  According to that definition, Web 2.0 technologies provide everything I need.  But which technology would be the best fit?  For my initial design, I will choose the wiki.
 
"A wiki is an online writing space designed to be created and edited by groups of persons" and "can be an excellent tool for collaborative online writing assignments and group activities compiling information in a single online source (Simonson et al., pg. 245, 2009)."  I've had previous experience with wikis in the program here at Walden, and I've found them to be terrifically valuable platforms for document sharing and collaborative document editing.  Many people can work with the same documents, edit them, and then post the edited documents to the wiki for further review.  This type of platform should be a great fit for a staff information system.  As staff rosters change, posted listings can be easily edited to reflect the new staff rosters.  If new information needs to be shared with all staff, the documents can be posted to the wiki to be accessed by all.  There are also many free wiki sites available, so the wiki would seem to be a cheap way to ensure staff collaboration across all sites.
 
In addition to the wiki itself, training would need to be designed and implemented to teach the staff of the corporation how to use a wiki.  A simple interactive wiki presentation could be built using Adobe Captivate (or MS PowerPoint) defining a wiki, explaining the beneficial uses of a wiki, and allowing learners to experience a wiki first-hand.  Then, assuming there are trainers located at each corporate site (like Walden has), an in-class session can be scheduled for the sites, allowing for staff to work with a wiki in the presence of co-workers and a trainer.  Once this practical application knowledge is acquired, staff should have no trouble using the corporate staff information wiki.
 
Wikis have been shown to be effective in this capacity before, and will show more effectiveness in the future.  A couple of examples to prove my point:
 

• "At Universitas 21 Global, selected faculty potentials undergo a mandatory three-week online faculty training programme (FTP), which they must successfully complete before they received their official appointment to teach an online class for U21Global (Gullett & Bedi, pg. 358, 2007)."  It was noted that due to the length of time of the FTP and the length of time to official appointment, it was easy for faculty to forget the information presented in the FTP.  The university implemented a collaborative wiki as a continuing part of its training and development program, allowing for faculty to access previous FTP materials, edit the materials for future use, and build social networks within the school.  This example shows well how a wiki can continue a training and development process, allow for staff collaboration, and enhance social networks.
• Innovative Learning Group in Michigan has a five-part series on YouTube extolling the virtues of interactive wikis in corporate training and learning environments.  Innovative Learning Group specializes in custom trainings, and for them to focus so much time and energy producing a five-part YouTube series extolling said virtues of wikis in training, says a lot for the increased use of wikis in training environments.  Tom Werner linked to this series on his site, workplace learning today; says Werner: "Wikis are probably the most relevant Web 2.0 tool for training because they are all about group contribution to content (http://www.brandon-hall.com/workplacelearningtoday/?p=4342)."

References:

Gullett, E. & Bedi, K. (2007).  Wiki: A new paradigm for online training and development of faculty.  Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/gullett.pdf.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.