Project Managing E‐learning: A Handbook for Successful Design, Delivery and Management

Citation

Kenny, J. (2009), "Project Managing E‐learning: A Handbook for Successful Design, Delivery and Management", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 315-318. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880910970696

This book sets out to describe how the initiate, plan, execute, control close – IPECC project management (PM) process, as defined by the Project Management Institute in the Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMI, 2008) can be applied to projects to develop internet‐based learning solutions. The audience is project managers but the book claims to have relevance to others who may be involved in e‐learning projects.

The book overlays an instructional design process called analyze, design, develop, implement and evaluate on to the PM process. It approaches the e‐learning projects from the clear assumption that the project manager is the key person in achieving project success and so needs to set the project up in such a way that he/she has in his/her control a range of levers and information on which to make decisions. As in classic PM, “project success” is defined in terms of the project being completed on time, within budget and within the scope.

Following the introduction, the various chapters of the book concentrate on describing each stage of the PM process in great detail and providing tools which the PM can use to ensure project success. Chapters 2‐8 are entitled, respectively: Initiating the project, Planning the project, Executing the project, Controlling the project, Closing the project, Quality management and Change management. The book then concludes with two chapters. Chapter 9 entitled “Putting it all together” and Chapter 10 “The future of e‐learning and its impact on project management.”

It is established early that the “project manager does not need to be an expert in course design and development […] ” (p. 16). While the book acknowledges the range of other roles that may be involved in an e‐learning project, it takes a very top‐down, corporate approach to change management and the development of e‐learning projects. Project managers are warned not to “overlook subject matter experts [SMEs]” when identifying project team members (p. 15). SMEs are defined broadly as “experts in their area or profession” (p. 18) who may temporarily join the project team as required to provide guidance. According to the authors, they may include, depending on the size of the project, an instructional designer, an engineer, some from customer service, a finance person, a programmer, a new product developer, […]

It is interesting that from the perspective advocated by the authors, the actual teaching staff who will deliver and supposedly have a key role in evaluating and maintaining the e‐learning “product” are apparently sidelined, but should be kept informed of the on‐going “daily work” of the project team (p. 21).

Herein lies a key weakness in the adoption of the IPECC PM approach which tends to assume all projects are much the same, varying only in scope. In an e‐learning project those academics who will actually do the teaching will not necessarily subscribe to the PM approach as advocated, and this may introduce a cultural divide between the academics and the project manager which deserves more careful attention than the authors appears to have given it in this book (Phelps et al., 2000; Bates, 2000).

From the PM perspective as advocated by the authors in this book, an e‐learning project is seen as a process to be managed to completion by a project manager who may know little about e‐learning and whose investment in the project ends when the project is handed over. Those academics who will teach into the e‐learning course however, have a longer term investment in the outcomes of the project as well as its on‐going development. In addition, many may have to change their professional practices to work effectively in an e‐learning environment. Kenny (2001, 2002) described a case where problems arose when the technological infrastructure and roll‐out time‐scales on a large‐scale e‐learning project ran ahead of the professional growth of the academic users due to top‐down strategic targets driving a project. He pointed to the need for educational issues to be seen as important as project issues. The professional growth for the educators who will use the technology occurs continuously in iterative cycles of action learning that will go far beyond the life of the project. As Inglis et al. (1999) pointed out, top‐down approaches are unlikely to be effective in such cases.

While the book provides some case studies in Chapter 8, they are analysed from the same PM perspective: where change has to be managed and people are categorised into fence‐sitters, supporters or resisters (active or passive) (p. 137). As the authors point out in Chapter 8, “change management” involves convincing the individuals in an organisation to adopt it, but achieving this is the most difficult part of any project. From the authors' perspective, however, this is a “political process” to persuade people to adopt a top‐down vision which has to be cascaded through the organisation. Other approaches advocated in the literature take a much more organic view of change, particularly for radical change, that sees the individuals in an organisation helping to shape the strategic direction (de Wit and Meyer, 1999). There is indeed a political and a cultural divide between these two approaches.

In terms of PM, Lester (1998), Sheasley (1999) and Shenhar and Dvir (1996) considered the levels of uncertainty or innovation should be a key determinant of the most appropriate PM approach. Shenhar and Dvir (1996) proposed four categories of project, distinguished according to the levels of uncertainty associated with them and their scope. They associated the level of uncertainty with the level of new technology and the degree of change required. More innovative projects imply more that has to be learned about it before it should be rolled out across an organisation. Shenhar and Dvir (1996) argued that the more complexity and uncertainty is associated with an innovation, the more open to change and adaption the PM process has to be. They advocated establishing project teams and communication processes that are based on flatter management and numerous iterations to adapt to changing circumstances and on‐going learning. Similarly, Verwey and Comninos (2002) described a PM process based on “progressive elaboration” of a project to deal with uncertainty. These approaches are fundamentally different to the traditional PM approach advocated by the authors, which seemed to allow for only one cycle of development and control of the project managers.

In an organisational environment, projects are created in relation to a strategic decision and so cannot be considered separately from the organisational strategic environment. Thus, in an organisation it is possible for a project to be of small scope but have high importance due to the level of innovation and relevance to the organisations e‐learning strategy. In such cases, Kenny (2003a) argued for an overarching project team to implement an organisation's e‐learning strategy by supporting the establishment and development of a number of small scale action learning projects in educational institutions. In organisations more generally, he went on to argue that:

The effective implementation of a strategy is closely related to setting up an appropriate cultural environment and processes that match with the nature of the activity particularly when the change involves high levels of uncertainty or innovation (Kenny, 2003b).

The book hovers between what appears to be a central corporate perspective on e‐learning and the small scale developments. There is confusion about what needs to be done centrally and how this relates to small‐scale projects. For example, in most educational institutions, the setting up testing and roll‐out of the e‐learning infrastructure and learning management system maybe appropriately handled by the PM process advocated by the authors of this book. However, this must be viewed separately from the adoption of the innovation by the ultimate users; the support and process required to change teaching practices; and the problems faced by each individual applying the e‐learning solution.

In essence, this book is a comprehensive guide to PM dressed up in an e‐learning context. It has little to offer anyone other than staff who may wish to learn about the classical PM process and unfortunately it offers little guidance to those academics involved in the mainly small scale e‐learning projects in educational institutions around Australia.