Much as the “course level project” that was discussed, I too have found that “time” is the key factor when working to develop a new template or e-learning course. The issue of “planning” was covered in depth in the project review, in my experience though I have found that too much planning can hinder the process of getting the job done, especially when you only have certain “time-windows” from which to work with key staff, planning needs to be flexible too.
When working on one large e-learning programme development for professional CPD, I worked alongside University management and academic staff as my immediate stake-holders, with delegates once enrolled taking a “key” stakeholder position.
The resources fell into similar fields, staff time, finance, office space, facilities, knowledge, computing server space, hardware and systems, promotional staff, advertising; space, time, finance.
The project plan was clear initially, but as with all life’s best laid plan’s things altered and changed as the project progressed. Staff left the project and new academics were appointed. Finance became tight, but the initial roll out was successful, partly due to the extra time that I facilitated as launch date approached.
Failure was not really planned for, but the one fail safe if time became too tight, or if enough delegates did not enrol, was that we would delay the launch for 3 months, this wasn’t required though as all systems were ready, and delegates enrolled in such numbers that extra academic staff were required to facilitate the course, which wasn’t anticipated to occur until the second time that the course would run.
Evaluation was an ongoing procedure at key monthly intervals we took a snap-shot of progress on the course, and asked academic staff and delegates for feed-back at weeks, 2–6–12, from with the course system. We also asked for feedback via University administration staff at the course end.
We marked the success of the course on levels of retention, complaints and feedback that we received, from this we gained repeat admissions, as further courses rolled out and utilised the same design systems and feedback process.