2011.11 OERu Proposal for action for overall project plan
2011.11 Meeting subpages | |
---|---|
OERu 2011.11 | Homepage | Meeting report | Agenda | Virtual participants | Face-to-face participants | Anchor partner statements |
Proposal from Dunedin Group 3 for the overall project management.
Contents
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 9th 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) |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
New Program Proposal form | |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Review of Conflicts / Challenges | |
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Confirmed Entry to Market Requirements | |
|
|
|
||||||
|
Initial Discussion with VPAA | |
|
||||||||
|
Google Traffic report | |
|||||||||
|
Detailed Competitive review - report | |
|||||||||
|
Career Prospect Analysis - report | |
|||||||||
|
Admissions Requirements - report | |
|||||||||
|
Recommended Format / Structure etc (Centers / Online / Hybrid)? - report | |
|||||||||
|
Logistics - Time to Market - report | |
|||||||||
|
Time for ROI / to Break Even | |
|||||||||
|
Lead Purchase / Test Market | |
|||||||||
|
Review of Marketing Test | |
|||||||||
|
Report on Budget constraints | |
|||||||||
|
Individual Marketing Plans (for diff. formats etc) | |
|||||||||
|
Revenue Projections | |
|||||||||
|
EC Presentation | |
|||||||||
|
Presentation(s) to Campus Community | |
|||||||||
|
Titles / Course Descriptions (Mktg suggests keywords / Academics flesh out) | |
|||||||||
|
"Detail" conversation w. all parties | |
|||||||||
|
Development of Messaging for Admissions (program's USPs etc) | |
|||||||||
|
Development of Syllabi | |
|||||||||
|
Check in with Registrar | |
|||||||||
|
EMAS meeting held re: advising requirements | |
|||||||||
|
Marketing Materials review / costing etc. | |
|||||||||
|
Web Changes reviewed - web meeting | |
|||||||||
|
PR Plan developed | |
|||||||||
|
Announcement to wider SNHU community | |
|||||||||
|
Report to UCC | |
|||||||||
|
UCC - VPAA (decision) | |
|||||||||
|
Press Releases | |
|||||||||
|
Launch | |