2011.11 OERu Proposal for action for overall project plan

OERu

Towards more affordable education for all students worldwide

Home  |  Quicklinks  |  About  |  Logic model  |  People  |  Planning  |  Communications  |  Meetings  |  Resources  |  Media  |  FAQs

Proposal from Dunedin Group 3 for the overall project management.

Aims of the activity (longer term)

• Clarify and develop levels of participation for founder members allowing us to meet deadlines and have appropriate inputs.
• Offering a proof-of-concept prototype (small number of courses) that will enable students to get credit before the end of 2012. This will involve scholarships for pilot students.
• Assessment of learning outcomes and the development of a formal review process.

1.2 Objectives of the activity (short term)

• Get the context and input evaluation started to design the prototype
• Develop a system to keep the project moving in a steady timeframe: Prospectus – with critical part – the WBS – featuring Responsibility / Accountability / Consult / Inform (RACI) – clarify who is what. (Example attached)
• Align project planning with documents to funding proposals - present our documentation to a funder – one possible - February 9^th 2012 deadline for NextGen funding + shoot to Hewlett etc.
• Engage quality review standard bodies – input evaluation needed. Get an organization in early to review the project – perhaps a small steering group needed: EFQUEL, or Ulf Ehlers – director of OPAL. A system-wide review – over-arching quality framework

Narrative description of what you will do

Work on Project documentation that clarifies deliverables, ownership and deadlines; clarify point people at each founder member. Package these materials to present to a foundation or some possible funder. Develop a prototype to be in market for fall/autumn 2012, full launch fall / autumn 2013. Clarify all roles – on the project team (multi-national) and at each institution – suggestion = three people on the steering committee with a named liaison person at each institution – all docs to WIKI (transparent).

What inputs are required?

• Identification of point person at each institution – formal list (institution – steering committee? Liaison/representative)
• Timelines / launch date – in market date
• Review of Project Planning documentation
• List of courses for pilot

Decision proposal(s) for OERTen partners for this activity including who and when.

• Commit to Timeline / launch date & in market date
• Identify liaison representatives etc. – our ability to contact them.
• Agree to present to specific foundations (on this afternoon’s agenda)

Underlying Principles

We endorse the principle of institutional autonomy and context specific applications – within the guidelines of open governance and open management

• The models have to be scalable.
• The student experience has to be learner centered.
• Total learning system must be considered.
• Push towards an outcome based model.
• Accountability for active engagement

Other issues

• Critical questions around what defines a course – are the materials stand alone or can you only access / study the materials as part of the (college-specific) course.
• We must develop this to speak to Social Justice yet be sustainable – Affordable access to education
• We had discussion around - context-specific applications – identifying particular areas of study – could be a language focus or other (Narend) – allows institutional autonomy.
• Review all materials that are there already – Saylor etc. – don’t reinvent the wheel.

Threats

• Over-elaboration in the planning stageLack of consensus over project goals etc. – could lead to amorphous “product” – people have to engage and refine as we go (documentation on WIKI) – perhaps we need a charter.

Appendix I – institutional representatives:

Institution	Steering Committee Point Person
USQ	Dr Angela Murphy
Athabasca	Rory McGreal
Thompson Rivers	Irwin Devries
SNHU	Kevin Bell
University of South Africa	Narend to nominate
Empire State
Otago Polytechnic
Massey University
Ako Aotearoa
BC Campus
Nelson MIT
COL
UNESCO

Appendix II – example RACI chart

R = Performs the task/Creates the deliverable (Responsible) A = Accountable for the task being completed C = Consulted with prior to the activity being performed I = Informed that the task has been completed O = Out of the Loop (does not need to be informed)
Step	Task/Deliverable	Person 1	Person 2	Person 3	Person 4	Person 5		Person 6		Person 7	DEADLINE
1	New Program Proposal form	O	C	I	I	I		A
2	Review of Conflicts / Challenges	O	I	I	R	A
3	Confirmed Entry to Market Requirements	O	R		I	A
4	Initial Discussion with VPAA	C		C
5	Google Traffic report	O
6	Detailed Competitive review - report	I
7	Career Prospect Analysis - report	O
8	Admissions Requirements - report	O
9	Recommended Format / Structure etc (Centers / Online / Hybrid)? - report	O
10	Logistics - Time to Market - report	I
11	Time for ROI / to Break Even	I
12	Lead Purchase / Test Market	O
13	Review of Marketing Test	O
14	Report on Budget constraints	O
15	Individual Marketing Plans (for diff. formats etc)	I
16	Revenue Projections	I
17	EC Presentation	C
18	Presentation(s) to Campus Community	C
19	Titles / Course Descriptions (Mktg suggests keywords / Academics flesh out)	O
20	"Detail" conversation w. all parties	I
21	Development of Messaging for Admissions (program's USPs etc)	I
22	Development of Syllabi	O
23	Check in with Registrar	O
24	EMAS meeting held re: advising requirements	O
25	Marketing Materials review / costing etc.	I
26	Web Changes reviewed - web meeting	O
27	PR Plan developed	I
28	Announcement to wider SNHU community	C
29	Report to UCC	C
30	UCC - VPAA (decision)	C
31	Press Releases	C
32	Launch	C