Description
Collaboration is working with each other to do a task. It is a recursive process where two or more people or organizations work together to realize shared goals, (this is more than the intersection of common goals seen in co-operative ventures, but a deep, collective, determination to reach an identical objective
IMPLEMENTATION AND USE OF COLLABORATION TECHNOLOGY IN e-LEARNING: THE CASE OF A JOINT UNIVERSITY-COPORATE MBA 1 (Do not quote without Authors’ Permission) ROBERT P. BOSTROM2
L. Edmund Rast Professor of Business & Ex-Faculty Project Manager for PwC-Terry MBA Project [email protected]
Chris Kadlec
MIS PhD Student & Ex-Technical Project Manager for PwC-Terry MBA Project [email protected]
Dominic Thomas
MIS PhD Student [email protected] Management Information Systems Department Terry College of Business University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-6256
Abstract
This case study presents the learnings from the implementation and use of collaboration technology in the ongoing University of Georgia (UGA) MBA program created for the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) North American Consulting Group. PwC’s primary goals were consultant retention and development through a flexible and customized MBA program. The program has been very successful in meeting these goals. Flexibility in the program comes primarily from utilizing a combination of face-to-face classroom sessions and distance learning. Small 4-5 people virtual learning teams are used as a critical learning vehicle in the program. Collaboration technologies are the critical enabling agents for classroom, distance and team learning. The case presents a model of how collaboration technologies can be successfully used in technology-supported/eLearning environments. It also presents guidelines, based on the lessons learned, for the implementation of collaboration technology to achieve a successful, “blended” eLearning program. The chapter is based on data gathered from the key stakeholders: faculty, students, implementation team, and PwC and UGA management. Two of the authors were heavily involved in the project: one was overall project manager and faculty member and the other was technical project manager.
1
The authors wish to thank Don Burkhard, the first PricewaterhouseCoopers project coordinator, for his efforts! Without him this program would have never been a success! We also wish to thank all the students in the first graduating class, Class of 2000. The inputs from this class were critical to implementing key changes that lead to the success of this program. 2 Direct all correspondence to the first author.
Background “The biggest growth in the Internet, and the area that will prove to be one of the biggest agents of change, will be in on-line training, or e-learning.” John Chambers, CEO, Cisco "It is about raising the fundamental intellect of the organization every day. It is what makes organizations win. And inspiring people to learn because the excitement and the energy they get from that learning is so enormous; it is how you energize an organization. By making it curious, by making it say wow, by finding WOW's all of the time, by creating new learning. That is what making an organization win is all about." Jack Welch at TechLearn 2001, 10/29/01 Introduction
Many feel that the Internet is perhaps the most transformative technology in history. But for all its power, it is just now being tapped to transform education. At the dawn of the 21st Century, the education landscape is changing due to the Internet. The Internet is enabling us to bring learning to students instead of bringing students to learning. It is allowing for the creation of learning teams and communities that defy the constraints of distance and time, providing access to learning opportunities that were once difficult to obtain. This is true for the schoolhouse, on the college campus, and in corporate training rooms. The most common terms used to describe technology-supported learning via the Internet are e-Learning and online learning. We will use the term e-Learning. The power of e-Learning to transform the educational experience is awesome, but it has many potential risks and challenges. We need to develop guidelines to ensure that e-Learning technologies will enhance, and not frustrate, learning. The focus needs to be on learning not technology. This case study presents the learnings from the implementation and use of collaboration technology in the Terry College of Business (Terry) MBA program, University of Georgia (UGA), created for the Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) North American Consulting Group. Our reference to PwC will denote this specific group not the entire PwC organization. PwC’s primary goals were consultant retention and development through a flexible and customized MBA program. The Terry College was interested in developing a strong position in the executive education market and an eLearning infrastructure. The program has been very successful in meeting both institutions’ goals. The program is a combination of face-to-face classroom sessions and distance learning. Small 4-5 people virtual learning teams are used as a key-learning vehicle in the program. The two-year MBA program was launched in October 1998, and graduated its second class in September 2001. The program has been a huge success for both PwC and UGA. U.S News and World Report rated the program one of the top online graduate programs [Special Report: E-Learning, 10/15/01]. Collaboration technologies are critical enabling agents for classroom, distance and team learning. The case presents a model of how collaboration technologies can be
successfully used in e-Learning environments. It also presents guidelines, based on the lessons learned, for the implementation of collaboration technology to achieve a successful, “blended” e-Learning program. The chapter is based on data gathered from the key stakeholders: faculty, students, implementation team, and PwC and UGA management. Two of the authors were heavily involved in the project: one was overall project manager and faculty member and the other was technical project manager. The chapter will start with a brief introduction to e-Learning and the role of collaboration technologies. This will be followed by an overview of the Terry-PwC MBA program and a detailed look at collaboration technologies used within it. The paper focuses on the time frame from when UGA received the contract to end of the first year of the program. The last section will summarize learnings from the case discussed as a series of guidelines for those wishing to implement e-Learning programs. Although these guidelines are derived from an academic setting, they are applicable to both organizational and academic environments.
e-Learning and Collaboration Technologies
The use of e-Learning technologies for the delivery of training continues to grow at an exponential rate. According to International Data Corporation (IDC), U.S. corporate spending on e-Learning will reach $4 billion in 2001, up from $550 million in 1998. By 2004 this is expected to rise to $14.5 billion. We see similar growth patterns in the U.S. for both k-12 and college education. For example, in 2001, over half of all U.S. colleges/universities now offer online courses and over half of all U.S. k-12 teachers now use the Internet in lessons [Johnson, 2001]. During the1999-2001 time frame, e-Learning has moved from possibility to mainstream -- from “will we?” to “how will we?” At the 2001 Comdex Conference, eLearning was touted the next killer application [Moore & Jones, 2001]. Many feel that eLearning soon will become as ubiquitous as e-mail. The September 11, 2001 bombings of the World Trade Centers in New York City and other events have intensified the focus on e-Learning. Reduced budgets and the inability or unwillingness of people to travel has caused many organizations to start looking at e-Learning and digital collaboration as core mechanisms for supporting and doing business. We see this trend continuing. Until recently, geography, logistics, and scheduling concerns have severely hindered university-company relationships. e-Learning has broken down many of these barriers. Organizations are realizing that learning is at the heart of a company. It is the competitive advantage in an organization. However, organizations have difficulty retaining and developing competent workers especially where a degree is needed to successfully compete for higher positions. Currently, many companies sponsor a valuable employee to return to school; however, they typically lose the services of that employee for the two years of schooling. Companies have little control over scheduling and content in these situations. Many organizations and universities have turned to each other and e-Learning to help solve this problem. This case is an illustration of e-Learning successfully enabling a university-company relationship. Figure 1 shows the time-place matrix, introduced in Chapter 2, used to classify collaboration technology. e-Learning refers to the technology-supported learning activities in any of the four time-place environments. Distance/Distributed/Virtual
Learning refers to learning in which the learner and learning resources are separated by space and possibly also time, cells III and IV in Figure 1.
Blending became one of the keys to success for the Terry-PwC program. Almost every aspect of the program blended different approaches. The blend between distance and face-to-face education was a keystone to this program. A better view of e-Learning technologies and how they can be blended together is captured in Figure 2. Figure 2 shows three primary learning environments: classroom, online anytime and online live. These correspond to cells I, III and IV in the time-place matrix. The program focused on blending these three environments, focusing on classroom and online anytime.
Figure 2: Blended learning
Classroom Learning (Area I: Same time & Place) Online Anytime •Asynchronous •Primarily Area IV (Diff. Time + Place) •Database – Centric (Shared information e-Learning spaces) •Key Tools •Learning Management System •Learning Team Shared Spaces •Discussion Databases •Group and Individual email
Online Live •Synchronous/Real Time •Primarily Area III (Same Time + Diff. Place) •Communication – Centric •Key Tools •Instant Messaging/Chat •Audio/video conferencing •Virtual Classrooms •Electronic meeting tools
Online anytime technologies support learning anytime-anyplace. They primarily are database-centric creating shared information spaces for learners and faculty to work in at different times and places. Online live technologies provide same time interaction between learners and instructors at a distance through collaboration tools such as chat or a virtual classroom. Online live and online anytime correspond to the terms Synchronous and Asynchronous Shared Learning used in e-Learning model presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 2 also introduced a third type referred to as Independent e-Learning where learners take courses on an individual basis. This type of learning environment would use the same technologies as online anytime, thus, we did not include it in our model. Many view e-Learning only in terms of online live and online anytime technology, both of which facilitate distance or virtual learning. However, the dotted lines in Figure 2 indicate that these technologies can also be used to support classroom learning. The Terry-PwC program uses these e-Learning technologies when students are on campus as well as when they are back on the job. When on campus, these technologies form a “digital surround” for classroom learning. We found that using elearning as a “digital surround” enhances classroom learning and provides a great way to introduce students to e-learning. Whatever the learning environment, the following technologies are needed to make e-Learning happen: •Distribution Technology: technologies that provide information distribution and exchange allowing distance learning to take place. Although the primary focus of most eLearning is the Internet/Web, sometimes CDs or other distribution technology are used. The focus on the use of the Internet is why the term “online” is frequently used in describing e-Learning. •Learning Management or Content/Course management software: technologies that simulate the experience of a classroom while studying both on-campus and from a distance.
•Communication and collaboration software offers a rich, shared, virtual workspace in which instructor and students can interact one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many in order to learn together anytime and anyplace. Examples: •Asynchronous/online anywhere tools: e-mail, discussion databases, streaming audio/video. •Synchronous/online live (Real Time) tools: Instant Messaging, Chat, Audio/Video conferencing. •Course support software offers a rich set of tools including electronic libraries and other instructional programs to support specific courses. •Server environment software: technologies to support client-server applications outlined above. The core software in most e-Learning efforts is a Learning Management or Content Management System (LMS/LCS). A LMS/LCS manages the interaction between the learner and learning resources. The primary functionality provided is a database repository for learning resources (syllabus, articles, assessments, etc.). The primary difference between LMS and LCS is that a LMS usually provides additional functionality such as a course catalog, a registration system, tracking and reporting learner’s progress, etc. whereas a LCS focuses on learning content management for a given course or set of learning topics. The Terry program used a Lotus Notes based LCS, LearningSpace, which will be discussed in depth later. The LCS/LMS usually provides a limited set of collaboration tools that needs to be supplemented with other tools. The Terry program did this. From an e-Learning perspective, collaboration technologies can be viewed as the primary tools that one can use to facilitate learning through collaboration, collaborations between teacher-student and student-student. In chapter 2, e-Learning technologies were classified in the category for integrated collaboration technology, as these incorporate a variety of digital collaboration functionality: communication (email, instant messaging, streaming audio/video), shared information spaces (LMS/LCS, discussion databases), and coordination (calendaring and scheduling). Although a majority of e-learning technology is collaboration-based, some of the technology cannot be classified as collaboration tools. Two examples would be registration and tracking features in a LMS and content software used to support specific courses. An example of the later was the computer-based instructional and testing software used to develop students’ baseline-knowledge in statistics before starting the statistics course in the Terry-PwC MBA program.
Terry-PwC MBA program Brief Overview
Founded in 1912, the Terry College of Business is the flagship business school in the state of Georgia, one of the oldest business schools in the US, and one of 13 schools and colleges at the oldest state-chartered university in the country. The Terry College is home to one of the nation's ten largest undergraduate programs - with over 5,500 students - and one of the most selective MBA programs on any campus, public or private. The Financial Times, Business Week, Forbes and U.S. News & World Report consistently rank its undergraduate and graduate programs among the best. With roots dating back to Samuel Lowell Price in London in 1849, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) has a long history of providing consultation services.
Currently, PwC serves businesses and organizations in more than 150 countries and territories with its over 150,000 staff people and 9,000 partners. PwC’s approach focuses on using multi-disciplined teams that have a global industry scope and experience as well as knowledge of relevant issues and regulations. PwC’s area of expertise spans 24 market sectors, grouped into three clusters: Consumer and Industrial Products, Financial Services, Technology Info-Com and Entertainment. It is within this parent company environment that the PwC North American Consulting Group operates. We use PwC in this chapter to refer solely to the PwC North American Consulting Group with which the Terry College worked with to establish the Terry-PwC MBA program. The PwC two-year MBA program started with a proposal presented to PwC by the Terry College in March 1998. The goal was to create a program that would provide benefits to PwC, its employees and Terry. PwC would gain a customized learning venue for highly valued employees that would encourage them to stay with the company, without removing them from the work force for two years. The employees would gain an opportunity to earn an MBA, obtain intense professional development without foregoing knowledge of current events in the company, and develop a network of relationships with other PwC consultants in the class. Terry would gain a broader knowledge and experience-base from an e-Learning program linked with a large business consulting firm. The goal was to have approximately 40-50 students in each class. A number of key features distinguish the PwC program and help make it successful. The program is mission and outcome driven. The specialized curriculum supports and enables the blended delivery mode. The team and collaboration focus creates an environment where the sum of the parts exceeds the parts alone which increases the amount of learning taking place and speeds it up. At the same time, the student workload management ensures that the students have time to interact on a regular basis to complete assignments and to successfully carry out their jobs. On-going feedback and evaluation mechanisms allow areas for improvement to be identified and effectively crafted. Finally, the support infrastructure and program leadership creates an environment where technology is used for learning management and collaboration that enable successful learning to take place. These key distinguishing features are described in more depth in the following sections.
Mission and Outcome Driven
From the very beginning of the project, outcomes or goals of the two groups were made explicit and joint program and technology mission statements were developed. The program mission statement and guiding principles are shown in Figure 3. The focus from day one was quality in terms of creating a program that met PwC outcomes and Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) MBA accreditation standards. Unlike most MBA programs that are exclusively designed by the academic side, the Terry-PwC program was developed through collaborative efforts of both parties. PwC personnel were involved in all aspects of the program: course design, scheduling, selection and on-going management of students, etc. In designing the program, our focus was on selecting the best teaching faculty, building relevancy in all courses, creating a collaborative learning community, and balancing classroom and e-Learning environments.
A good e-Learning technology platform was the key to achieving the program mission and making the program successful. Thus, we also developed a technology mission statement and guiding principles to keep our efforts focused. The mission and guidelines are shown in Figure 4. Our focus was on the learner and the learning process, not the technology. We wanted to create ways to use technology to support and enable learning. In 1998, e-Learning technology was still evolving. Thus, our focus was on tested and proven technology and for it to be effective it had to be compatible with PwC’s technology infrastructure. Since both Terry and PwC were new to e-Learning, the project was viewed as a way for both parties to learn how to implement and effectively use eLearning.
Figure 4: Technology Mission and Guiding Principles Mission: To blend classroom learning environments with e-Learning technology to maximize learning experiences for PricewaterhouseCoopers employees. Guiding Principles: • The focus is on the learner and learning, not technology. • Learning is difficult, use technology as tools to support learning. • e-Learning technology will be used both on and off campus. • Use only tested and proven technology that is compatible with PwC technical environment. • Apply and integrate learning materials and activities with PwC technology and work experience wherever applicable. • Learn together how to implement and effectively use e-Learning
Each party had some very specific outcomes entering into this program. PwC had three primary goals. Employee retention, their first goal, was key when the program started but became less of a focus as time went on. Consultant turnover was a real problem in 1998 when the program was being designed and initiated. PwC used this MBA program as a way to retain key employees. Their second goal was to experience distance learning in a different way than they had implemented it in the past. PwC has extensive training systems. They bring students to locations to have face-to-face training and also have used distance learning. This blended MBA program gave them some experience with a different design. Consultant development, their third goal, is still a key motivation in continuing this program. Even with a current slowdown in the economy and with it layoffs in PwC, the company has kept a long-term view and therefore has chosen to continue this program to expand the skills level and intellectual talent of their consultants. The Terry College had a number of goals also. Two key goals were to become less dependent on State money and to explore emerging technologies as they relate to education. Terry wanted to make sure that they were ready for any changes in the way that education was going to be delivered in the future. This would mean a significant investment if they were to explore this on their own. The PwC program provided funding support for startup costs and the development of an e-Learning infrastructure. After the startup of the program, there would be revenue to invest into both this program and other programs. Producing new revenues meant that the Terry College would not have to react drastically to budget fluctuations at the State level. Additionally, the college wanted to gain a reputation in executive education and establish a valuable business connection.
Specialized Curriculum
Two years of study begin with a year of common courses covering core business areas tailored to PwC consultants’ world and lead to specializations in finance or
marketing in the second year. PwC and Terry agreed to limit the second year specializations to these two tracks in order to facilitate PwC’s outcomes. On the course level, content was also customized to the needs of the program. For example, the typical core accounting content at Terry spans financial and managerial areas and takes place over two courses. This content was collapsed into one course tailored to a consultant. Though it was redesigned, the program still maintains the academic core content to meet MBA accreditation standards. Terry’s willingness to collaboratively customize their MBA was one of the key reasons PwC selected the TERRY proposal.
Blended Delivery Mode
The program vision was to blend face-to-face and distance learning for each course. This led to an initial agreement that face time for the program’s courses would equal 50% of the in-class time allotted to a traditional MBA course. The remaining half of the traditional course time would be covered through distance learning while out-ofclass study time usually expected from students would remain constant in either setting. A typical course like Statistics would have 16 hours in the traditional classroom and 16 through distance media. The first year of the program starts with a two-week orientation and initial classroom sessions followed by three additional four-day weekends visits during the year. Thus, every three months the professors and students touch base and participate in any activities requiring the information-rich communication channels available during faceto-face learning time. The second year starts out with a one-week session followed by four four-day weekend sessions evenly distributed during the year. For the faculty who were to teach in the program, all new to distance learning, the 50-50 rule presented a problem: How to transfer a course that has been taught for years face-to-face into a mixed or blended context was a major issue. There were different approaches to this problem. One of the first approaches was to teach in the same order, as always, and when it is time for the distance portion, try to fit the course at that point into the technology. This approach worked well for courses that built on previously taught material like Accounting. Some faculty would teach all major concepts in on-campus time, and during the distance portion, they would have the students’ practice what had been demonstrated. This approach worked well for Statistics. The students had the big picture idea of what was going on, and it was later cemented when they practiced it. With this approach, the face-to-face time is leveraged. Some faculty would completely rearrange their course so that activities could be done during the face-to-face time with little lecture, leaving lecture for presentations while at a distance. This worked for Operations and Legal courses. Another approach was to leverage some of the distance time. The Ethics class started out with lecture and tried to get the students ready for some ethical conflicts that would be handled at a distance. These ethical conflicts required thoughtful time before advancing and were therefore perfect for the distance portion. The key to effectively blending the courses ended up being that each mode, either distance or face-to-face, had advantages and disadvantages, and the course would have to be designed to take these into account. As we learned how to be successful in each course, we adjusted the 50-50 rule giving some courses more face-to-face time and some less. However, we are not experts in this area.
There is a great need for research and sharing of practice on how to effectively blend different approaches and technologies. A variety of technologies are blended to support both on-campus and distance portions of courses. Additionally, student teams learn a variety of collaboration technology options to meet their needs. These technologies range from email and instant messaging services to team information spaces. These technologies have been the key elements in individual teams’ success. All technologies are used when students are on campus and when they are working from a distance. These technologies will be discussed in more depth in the next section.
Team and Collaboration Focus
The program designers aimed to retain the importance of collaboration, especially through teamwork, that characterizes successful MBA programs. Research has shown that collaborative learning is very effective, when done well, in college environments [Johnson et. al., 1998]. In addition, research has shown that the most successful distance learning courses were with class sizes of 15 or less. A smaller class is much easier to facilitate through technology especially when maximum interaction is wanted. Since the Terry-PwC program was looking at a class size of around 50, the effective use of learning teams and collaboration technology was imperative. Thus, the Terry-PwC program focused on building strong virtual learning teams of 4 or 5 people, where much of the initial discussion and work is done within each team, then between teams or between teams and the instructor. A great deal of time and effort is expended to ensure the development of effective virtual teams and the development of the overall class as a learning community. Most of the first week in the two week initial on-campus visit is devoted to team/class development. This is done through a team skills course that focuses on the effective development and facilitation of virtual teams. During this class, teams establish mutual goals and mission statements, work out a code of conduct that each member is willing to support, and develop a media plan that outlines how the team is going to use collaboration technologies to work together. It was our feeling that for a virtual learning team to be successful, the team needed to have a good technology platform that members are committed to! The development of the media plan facilitates commitment.
Student Workload Management
A balance had to be struck between the demands of maintaining the students’ jobs and attending college. A typical workweek for consultants is 60-70 hours, and the MBA program might demand up to that many hours during peak times. As a result the Terry faculty agreed to limit study time during off-campus periods to 15 hours per week, and PwC limited work time to 40 hours. This joint rule on timesharing was monitored through feedback mechanisms. Although there were continuous problems on both sides implementing this rule, this joint time-sharing rule was critical to the success of the program.
On-going Feedback and Evaluation
Regular feedback is built into the program. Every week students send in anonymous online feedback focusing on their experience in the program. While this feedback
includes more discrete items such as time spent on assignments and on PwC project work, it also gives them a chance to identify any problems they are facing. The program faculty and administrators receive this data and review it weekly. As issues such as assignments far exceeding the specified number of hours arise, solutions are crafted such as using an on-campus MBA student to benchmark the assignments or redesigning the assignments. In one case a professor, after viewing his own assignments benchmarked, decided his course should occupy a three-hour time slot instead of two. Course and program changes are often based on this feedback. During on-campus visits especially early in the program, feedback was gathered daily to ensure we were doing the right things. These surveys were done using LearningSpace. This survey and assessment functionality is critical to e-Learning and common in most LMS/LCS. We would never have been able to continuously improve the program without this type of collaboration technology to gather input from 40-50 students.
Support Infrastructure
Our research into e-Learning had clearly shown that without adequate support, the program was doomed to failure. Thus, providing support was a guiding principle from day one. When the program was launched in October 1998, the program had three fulltime employees and nine part-time MBA graduate assistants supporting the faculty and students. They were referred to as the Distributed Learning Group (DLG). The three fulltime roles consisted of a Lotus Notes Administrator, a Faculty Liaison who focused on effective use of technology by faculty, and a Technical Support Assistant, a person who provided backup to Notes Administrator and did general technical support. This support team provided initial technology training and then served as an on-going technology help desk providing support throughout the program. One of the key issues that arose in developing support was bridging the competence gap. First, we had to get technical staff trained in Notes, LearningSpace and other technology tools, then train faculty and students. While some of the faculty and students tended to develop into tinkerers/experts interested in playing with and innovating their own uses of technology tools, others tended to be ‘good soldiers’/novices who expected to be told the right things to do, how and when. The support infrastructure had to be designed with enough flexibility to accommodate both of these user types. The PwC program achieved this by providing initial support through training and weekly meetings that mixed the support staff with the users and focused on specific technology topics. These meetings addressed such topics as the scheduling tool, instant messaging, or developing presentations with audio, depending on the faculty’s requests. Program leadership was also a critical issue in support infrastructure development. In a joint program like this, we needed strong leadership from both UGA and PwC. Our leadership team consisted of three main players. From the UGA side, one faculty member who had extensive technological knowledge and tenure in the University system served as program and project manager for technical and curriculum/content issues. The knowledge and experience of this person served to garner the respect and open channels between technical staff, faculty and administrators. The TERRY MBA Director managed the administrative aspects of the program. PwC had a person that coordinated all activities from PwC perspective. Initially,
he was devoted fulltime to this program and once the program was implemented it was still a major time commitment. Once the contract was signed, PwC also designated a Partner, who served on the Executive Committee, to oversee the project. The coordinator could use his access to this top management person, if needed, to facilitate PwC’s support for the program. Utilizing his staff and other PwC resources as needed, the PwC coordinator is involved in all aspects of the program: administration of contract and all travel arrangements for students, program/course design, selection of students, and on-going management of student issues such as violations in project time commitments. Students are first nominated by partners and selected by PwC management. Then students have to be accepted by the Terry College Admissions Office to get into the MBA program. Without this strong leadership commitment from PwC, the program would not have been a success. The strong leadership commitment from the Faculty project leader and PwC project coordinator, their ability to effectively work together and to mobilize resources in both of their institutions was critical to the development and success of this program in the early phases. Any university or business looking at developing such a relationship needs to clearly focus on building an integrative leadership structure to develop and manage the program.
Implementation Process
The first year of the program ended in October of 1999. Getting there required addressing seven critical stages, listed below and described in the following paragraphs: Pre-Planning, Planning, Technologies Implementation, Faculty Training, Starting the Face-to-Face Component and Starting the Distance Component, and On-going Evaluation. The complete project start-up time line is shown in Figure 5.
Pre-Planning
While our discussion is based on the time period from when the contract was signed forward, some key faculty at the Terry College had been investigating e-Learning technologies prior to this period. They had done research into how different technologies could be used in an e-Learning environment. While they did not have a definitive system in mind, they were able to pick a couple of products that seemed to show the most promise. Thus, at the point that PwC and Terry got into serious discussions, there was not only expertise in-house, but there was also a conceptual framework already forming in the mind of the faculty member that ended up being a key lead for the project. The contract itself, signed in March, ended up answering many questions as to how the program was to be delivered giving the planning phase some boundaries to work within. Time would be close to 50% on campus (compared to the number of classroom hours for a traditional MBA) and 50% off. There would be 40-50 students per class. Each class would take 2 years to graduate and a new class would start yearly. Classwork would be scheduled 50 weeks a year with two weeks off at Christmas. The first class would start in seven months, October 1998. The state of the technologies gave some other boundaries. Dial-up was the standard way for students and faculty to get to the Internet from their homes or hotels. Learning Content Management Systems were adequate but did not have a real program feel and there would have to be some customized solutions implemented. Pre-planning played a critical role in the program’s success. Once the program’s vision, outcomes and guiding principles were established, feasibility had to be ensured. Feasibility analysis has economic, technical and organizational components. From an economic standpoint, analyzing the cost of implementation and on-going support led to an understanding of the budgets that would be necessary. On the technical side, various software programs and their hardware requirements were researched. This technology was then compared to the existing infrastructure to identify additional investments needed and to understand how the learning content would have to be designed and blended to use the technology effectively. For example, since Lotus Notes already existed as a platform in PwC, looking for a Notes-based system that met the program’s requirements became a high priority. One key to the organizational analysis was creating a blended delivery design for the program. Faculty workloads and attitudes about participation and commitment levels were examined. Many faculty members and PwC staff involved expressed deep reservations about the learning quality in an entirely virtual program. Yet this was essential to the program, as the PwC participants would have to continue working offcampus while studying in the program. The blend of face-to-face and virtual delivery served both organizational needs.
Planning
Once the contract was signed and the deadlines were real, planning started. Who was going to manage the program all the way down to who would make the coffee when the students were on campus had to be decided, and people needed to be appointed or hired. At this time, the program started hiring the new infrastructure support group, the Distance Learning Group (DLG), which would then purchase and implement the specific hardware and software packages necessary for the program. The first two staff members
were hired and working as of June 1998. At the same time, key project leaders handled the logistics for conducting faculty training and student orientation. Specific tasks ranged from setting up a faculty listserv and discussion databases to allow faculty to share experiences, problems, and solutions to developing training materials that would cover primary functional areas for the faculty. The Terry project leader working with the MBA faculty committee developed the curriculum and got it approved by the MBA committee and the Terry faculty.
Technologies Implementation
Once some of the basic structure was put into place, such as servers and server and client software, the DLG explored how they could be used to fit the needs of the students and faculty. As deficiencies were found, new technologies were researched or developed and then implemented. This ended up being analogous to building a house with a general plan and working out the details as it gets built. While this does not seem to be the most logical way of handling the implementation of a professional program, both the Terry College and PwC entered into this agreement to learn more about e-Learning. This also set the mindset for the program for the first year: Plan, Develop, Implement, Evaluate, and Adjust. This was done at every level from the Director down to the student. Since the technologies were to be managed internally, the new DLG staff had to obtain training on them and install them. They spent many hours debugging and configuring the necessary servers and networks, setting up workstations for faculty, and establishing procedures for managing the on-going needs of the program. As one of the original staff members put it, “Don’t underestimate the need for establishing procedures.” These procedures then allowed the hiring and training of new staff with less of a time lag to explain tacit procedures. This was particularly important because DLG used a lot of part-time students. Technologies implementation involved checking for not only physical linkages and functionality of the system but also refinements to the design of the architecture. As faculty feedback began to arrive during weekly and sometimes more frequent meetings in July and August, the support staff worked continuously to derive the maximum value from the LearningSpace software and other software chosen for the distance elements of the program. For example, a program-wide meta-course was designed as an improvised tool for program-level interaction and management.
Selection and Training of Faculty
From our research on distance learning, we knew that the faculty/trainer role was key. We decided to go after the best teaching faculty we had in each area regardless of their technology background. We felt that good teachers would have the best skills to use technology effectively both in the classroom and from a distance. We knew we could teach them to use the technology, but it would be much more difficult and time consuming to teach them how to be good teachers. Technology readiness varied greatly, from a few faculty who had just started using email and were somewhat familiar with word processing to very technology savvy users. The training dealt with this by covering a variety of technology options, appealing to the knowledgeable users, while also including a four-week tutorial on core functions of
the LearningSpace software and how to apply them to each individual’s content, appealing to the novices. Faculty training began with a focus on the functional areas of their teaching and how specific technologies could fit specific tasks in each area. These functional areas came from their standard classroom teaching and included: how to lecture online; how to run a discussion online; how to assign and collect papers online; how to administer exams online; how to hold office hours online; and how to facilitate student teamwork online. Some larger issues also arose, such as how to integrate the distance component of a course with the face-to-face time. This issue was a source of anxiety for many, but ultimately required simply getting into the semester and experiencing the solution appropriate for each course. The feedback and collaboration between faculty during and between sessions, through the listserv, discussion databases and during weekly meetings also led to dynamic adjustment of the training when issues arose. Toward the end, this training process had created a working team composed of faculty and support personnel who could then help each other respond to challenges during the first semester.
On Campus Learning Begins
On October 17, 1998 the new students arrived on campus, and the face-to-face component began. These two weeks were intense. Students had to master initial content, the technology, and become oriented to each other in a new environment. Several sessions focused on developing and facilitating learning teams and student relationships. Research has shown that these relationships are valuable in maintaining a personal sense or feel during distant interaction. The personal feel relates to the individual’s or teams sense of information richness within the distance technologies. Face-to-face conversations contain the richest information, full of feedback capabilities, multiple cues, and a personal focus. Research indicates that students who have a prior face-to-face sense of each other and trust intact can move more easily into and use online learning environments even if they are using tools that do not offer as rich of information channel as face-to-face interaction. As such, prior face-to-face interactions affect the effective use of technologies. Groups having these experiences report more comfort using less rich information technology, such as audio and email instead of video and synchronous chat. Forging personal connections requires information richness in a variety of personal details. Thus, this activity seems best handled in face-to-face environments. Trying to make personal connections happen effectively in a totally virtual context can lead to a larger investment of time and energy. Thus, the first two face-to-face weeks served the typical course role of beginning content delivery along with a more critical role of developing the relationships and teams which would enable the transition to distance learning.
Distance Learning Begins
When the two-week campus visit ended, faculty and students had to rely on the distance technologies for the first time. Professors would record lecture audio tracks synchronized with on-screen slide presentations. These bundled lecture files would then be uploaded to their course in LearningSpace. When students logged on their computers they would automatically download all of the new content files and upload all of their work, through
the replication function in Notes. Replication allowed them to continue studying and interacting with the class even when disconnected from the Internet. For example, a student could be on a plane between consulting jobs, listening to lectures and reading and responding to the latest updates in the online threaded discussions. Arriving at their destination they could dial into the Internet again and touch base with everyone else’s updates. They could study disconnected without being disassociated and depersonalized.
Evaluation and Feedback lead to Improvements
Throughout the semester students sent in feedback to their professors and to the program staff. When classes ended, the students filled out evaluation forms. The suggestions from feedback and evaluations helped craft program improvements. Students could compare and contrast the formats of the different courses they were taking and helped spread knowledge of best practices from professor to professor. The professors would then meet and share tips and techniques. On the support staff side, procedures for keeping the technology running smoothly improved. For example, we learned that due to the dial-up connections that some students used, lecture files needed to be limited to chunks of about 20-minutes or less, or about 1.5 to 2 megabytes. We also found that short lectures from a distance were a lot more effective from a learning perspective as well.
Collaboration Technology Used in the Program
The Terry College looked at a wide range of technologies in an effort to find a good mix for a blended program. We looked at the benefits and drawbacks, trying to leverage strengths and minimize weaknesses. In making our technology selections for the program, we used the two models introduced earlier in this paper, time-space technology matrix, see Figure 1, and the blended learning environments, see Figure 2. The program focused on blending the three environments outlined in Figure 2: online anywhere, online live and classroom. This section overviews the technology used in each of these three environments.
Online Anywhere
Online anywhere technology allows access to information anytime, anyplace. It is usually the core technology for most e-Learning efforts. The primary technologies used in this area are shared information spaces and e-mail. For the Terry College this meant that lectures, handouts, reading material, and classroom conversations would have to be digitized, and then, these electronic documents could be visited by the instructor and students when and where it was convenient. The initial faculty and support investment in teaching a course would be high, but following offerings of the same course would already have most of the content ready. Research has indicated that initial course development work takes about three times more for an online anytime course. Having the courses in electronic format also meant that the course could be easily updated on the fly. A major drawback for Terry was that faculty did not know how to develop this type of instruction for this learning environment. This is why faculty training was such a key issue for the program’s success. For PwC the advantages were that students could work on the courses during off work time hours. They did not have to be transported
from their work, and they did not have to miss work. Since PwC employees already used this type of communication technology (Lotus Notes), no additional PwC infrastructure was needed. This also facilitated student training. Since the program was going to be a blended, distance and face-to-face education, there had to be a mix of technologies. It was decided early on that there would need to be an overarching technology that would hold both distance and face-to-face course materials. This would allow the students and faculty to access and post information to a common space. We briefly introduced this type of technology earlier as a Learning Management System (LMS) or Learning Content Management System (LCS). We chose a LCS from Lotus called LearningSpace. In looking at the time and place model, LMS/LCS fits primarily in area IV, different time-place, although they can be used to support all three of the other areas in the time-place model. We started with LearningSpace version 2.5 and have moved to version 3.0. Since the program began, Lotus and IBM have developed newer versions 4.0 and 5.0. These latter versions took more of a commercial or corporate focus and web-centric approach. Many of the key academic features, such as electronic assignments, were dropped in version 4.0. In addition, the Lotus Notes infrastructure was replaced with a server-side database one. This meant by upgrading to version 4.0 we would lose the replication feature of Lotus Notes, forcing students to be connected to the Web to use the system. Based on these concerns and others, we decided to stay with version 3.0. Since PwC used Lotus Notes for all the consultants in the program, LearningSpace, which is a Lotus Notes application, was a natural fit. One advantage of LearningSpace over some of the other LCSs was its ability to replicate a complete copy of all learning materials on student computers as noted earlier. Replication allows students to work on course activities while disconnected from the Internet. For the Terry College, this had the additional benefit of decreasing the reliance on their network. Concern about network outages would not be as critical because students would have a copy of the course on their laptops. Each LearningSpace course has five Notes databases, four that the student has access to and one that is for the faculty member to manage grades and make tests. The first four are the ones the student uses directly: 1) Schedule - Contains the syllabus for the class outlining learning activities with links to all the associated support materials. 2) MediaCenter – This is the electronic library for each course that holds all handouts, articles, recorded lectures, etc. with links to other resources. 3) CourseRoom – Roughly equivalent to the classroom. It provides for threaded discussions and is where assignments can be handed in by the students and handed back by the faculty member. 4) Profiles – This holds student information, pictures of the students and student portfolios of grades. 5) Assessments – This database holds quizzes, tests, and surveys along with the grade book for the faculty member. Students complete assessments by accessing them from the Schedule database.
Figure 6 shows the Instructor LearningSpace interface to the Schedule database for the Teams Course, which is the first course taken in the program. The student interface would be the same except they would not have tool bar for creating and editing entries. The interface is a typical Lotus Notes interface with a views menu on the left-hand side and documents listed in center of the screen. LearningSpace is available through a Lotus Notes client or a Web Browser. The Notes version, pictured in Figure 6, has more functionality in it and must be used to create documents, but both interfaces look similar. The Schedule database captures the course syllabus as a collection of organized Notes Documents that describe learning activities. The organization for this class was by module but could have been by week or some other organization type. For example, in module 6, there are four Notes documents describing four different classes. The student would simply click on a document, “Class 6:…”, to get information for that class period. The student can see learning activities displayed in calendar format by clicking on “by Calendar” button. The student can easily switch to different databases by clicking on icons just below “LearningSpace” in the lefthand corner or through links embedded in Schedule documents. (For example, the “table with people around it” icon designates the CourseRoom database. Clicking on it will move you to the CourseRoom interface.)
The following scenario outlines how students would use LearningSpace and other tools to accomplish a learning activity from a distance: • Read assigned readings as outlined in Schedule database entry (readings in textbook or accessed from MediaCenter) • Students listen to mini lecture with slides when desired, accessing session from MediaCenter.
Students post a note in a discussion in CourseRoom database. Instructor or classmates respond to questions or ask for clarifications. Instructor or students may create a most frequently asked questions discussion in CourseRoom for students. • Team or class discusses readings using a discussion in CourseRoom. Certain students or a team may be asked to start discussion by reviewing/critiquing a reading. • Students or teams may complete a homework assignment related to the readings (this may be one the student creates from their own work environment). Teams will use their TeamRoom shared information space to work on homework from a distance. They may supplement this with real time communication (ICQ, NetMeeting) and phone conferences. • Assignments will be electronically submitted (submit as a LearningSpace assignment in CourseRoom) to professor for grading. The instructor uses special instructor facilities in CourseRoom to grade assignments. Graded homework will be automatically returned to students (assignments posted in CourseRoom as graded), and their grade will be posted to the electronic gradebook in Profiles and Assessment databases. • Students may also work through some self-assessment questions or exercises to check their understanding of material. These may be purchased or developed instructional programs that would be launched from Schedule or a LearningSpace assessment that was developed by the instructor using facilities in the Assessment database. • Students may also be required to write an entry in their electronic journal that integrates and applies knowledge gained from learning activities to their work situation. The journal could be implemented using a CourseRoom Discussion that keeps specific entries of each student separately, allowing access only to personal entries and overall access to the instructor or by using a separate Notes database. Finding an effective workspace for learning teams was a problem for us. LMS/LCS usually offers some team support workspaces and facilities but these are usually limited, and thus, additional technology is usually needed. Although LearningSpace handles team assignments and grading, it does not provide any team support technology. However, Lotus offers another product, TeamRoom that met our needs. Since TeamRoom, like LearningSpace, was a Lotus Notes application, it was easy to move documents between TeamRoom and LearningSpace. The class was divided up into teams, and these teams were used in all classes. This team approach was a central focus to the program and needed a technology to support it. TeamRoom was slightly modified for this purpose, and it gave a place for teams to meet in a virtual space (using discussion databases) and a place for them to share documents and references. We modified TeamRoom to hold additional team development material such as team purpose and outcomes, code of conduct and media plan. TeamRoom also allowed the creation of information spaces for subteams and the scheduling (due dates, etc.) and assigning of responsibility for course assignments. •
Online Live
Online live technology primarily supports real-time communication while communicators are in different places. We trained faculty and students in the use of audio-video conferencing (NetMeeting) and instant messaging (ICQ). The advantage for the Terry College was that faculty could still lecture to or hold office hours with students
but not be required to be at a certain location. This meant that faculty could teach while at a vacation home or while overseas at a conference. The College could offer the best faculty for the program while offering the faculty member the flexibility to pursue other interests. For PwC, students could be on any project and would not have to spend time traveling to one location. Students could also use this technology to support their teamwork from a distance. The first drawback was the coordination of a common time for faculty and students to meet. During the time of any one course, faculty and students were in many different time zones, some even overseas. Finding a time that was not too late and when all concerned were not at work was difficult. Some faculty did work out electronic office hours that used these tools with regular phone contact if needed. Students used instant messaging as a way to stay in contact with each other and for quick questions and file transfers to teammates. Most of the learning teams used audio conference calls through a phone bridge once a week to coordinate team activities. PwC, not Terry, supported these conference calls. Teams were organized so that team members were in same or adjacent time zones wherever possible to facilitate real time meetings. The remainder of the time they coordinated work through the shared information space technology, TeamRoom, described above. All teammates were usually connected into TeamRoom during their conference call to access and share relevant information and files. The other more critical drawback at the start of the program was the state of the Internet. High-speed connections were not readily available in residential settings or in hotels. This has been changing, and thus, we are actively encouraging the use of more online live tools and investigating the addition of new tools especially a virtual classroom tool such as Centra, WebEx, Lotus Sametime or Horizon Live. Virtual classroom tools have added playback facilities that allow a student to review a session or experience it if they could not attend. The playback feature deals with the problem of getting people together all at the same time. These tools are being used to effectively train students in both academic and corporate environments. We feel they will also be excellent tools to support our learning teams. By the end of 2001, we hope to use a virtual classroom in the PwC and other MBA programs.
Classroom
Classroom learning happens in the same place and the same time. We explored technology that would support a classroom setting or a face-to-face meeting. We also wanted students to have available and use the same technology when they were on campus that they used from a distance. Our challenge in this area was to get faculty to use technology as a “digital surround” to support classroom activities. Since all students had laptops and brought them to class, shared information spaces and tools could be accessed and used. For example, LearningSpace surveys or Instant Messaging chats could be used within the classroom to support case discussions and engage students in other ways. Some faculty used collaboration technology in this way, but it was limited. Most of the time technology was only used to access class resources in LearningSpace. It was limited for two reasons: we did not focus on the technology’s broader uses in our training, and we needed better tools to support this, such as electronic meeting support tools or virtual
classroom tools. We are currently exploring integrating these types of technology into our infrastructure. Area “II” in the time-place matrix, different time and same place, is usually not addressed in e-Learning discussions. It implies a common physical place where students or faculty could leave things for each other. We have this capability when students are on campus since they are always in the same classroom and materials are left for students there. However, our focus was not on a shared physical place, but rather a focus on shared information or virtual spaces that could be shared at same or different times. Thus, even if one is in the same place, such as the classroom, we use collaboration technology to enable people to share information through virtual spaces.
Different Levels Involved in e-Learning
One of the biggest problems encountered using LearningSpace for the program was its sole focus on the “class” versus the larger MBA program. The original design of LearningSpace did not allow for a program view. While each class is important for the student, it is the program or how each class fits with the others that make an MBA degree valuable. As a solution, another LearningSpace course was created to provide this program view, but this solution still lacked many important features such as an easy way for the students to see an overall picture of what was due for them in any one of their classes. This problem highlights the point that there are multiple levels that you need to support with e-Learning technology. Most organizations would have the four levels described in Figure 7. Using the Terry-PwC program as an example, we have already discussed the individual-team and course levels. Students work individually and in teams within a given course. Technology was needed to support both individual-team and course levels. We also needed support for overall management of the program in terms of things such as integrated scheduling and program-wide discussions. Similarly, from an organizational perspective, it would be useful to have technology support the management and integration of different learning programs. For example, the PwC MBA is one of five MBA programs in the Terry College. Terry continually has problems with scheduling, resource allocation, sharing information, etc. between these programs that eLearning technology could support. In an organizational setting, the organizational view would most likely be managed by the Human Resource area as it schedules and tracks employees through the company’s many training programs.
Figure 7: Different Levels Involved in e-Learning
Organizational level Organizational-level: The management of multiple programs and students. Issues: programs integration and management, student registration and tracking, etc. On-line anytime
Learning Management tools, cross-program communication
Program level Learning Space Course and email Personal and program news and file sharing
Program-level coordination: The management and coordination of multiple courses and students taking those courses. Issues: integrated planning, scheduling and resource allocation, student and faculty bios, program discussions, etc. On-line anytime Course-level: The resources and tools to teach/take a particular course. Issues: course design, assignments, discussions, grading, etc. On-line anytime and live*
Course level LearningSpace Course and email Assignments, lectures, discussions Student-Team level TeamRoom, ICQ, phone, email, etc.
Student-Team level: Tools necessary for student teams geographically spread out to meet, work on assignments and collaboratively learn together. On-line anytime and live*
* On-line live applications such as instant messaging (ICQ) and audio/video conferencing (NetMeeting) provided this functionality in addition to conference calls.
The differences between Learning Management Systems (LMS) and Learning Content Management Systems (LCS), discussed earlier, are highlighted using the level model in Figure 7. A LCS usually focuses on course and student-team levels, while LMS tend to provide support for all levels. Most LMS/LCS do not provide online live support or good learning team support tools. However, the trend is to provide these capabilities by allowing seamless links from LMS/LCS to other tools. In our situation, we use LearningSpace as our core LCS. We created some limited ways to support program and organizational levels as discussed above. However, we could have used much better support at these levels. In addition, as we outlined above we had to add a number of technology tools to support live collaboration and teamwork. LearningSpace 3.0 did have an online live module but it did not perform well enough to meet our needs. It is our understanding that the newer versions of LearningSpace have improved the online live capabilities. We are continually monitoring the evolution of the LMS/LCS market to plan our e-Learning strategic direction. It is clear that the trend is for more and more seamless integration of tools using a LMS/LCS as the core online anywhere technology. This integration is being greatly facilitated by the development of standards allowing reusability of content between courses from different vendors and interoperability of technologies. Although not directly related to collaboration technologies, this issue of learning content is very important to a company’s e-Learning strategy. Let’s look at it from the levels perspective, Figure 7, and use the PwC MBA program as an example. You can find digitised learning content everywhere. When we started this program, not a lot of content was available so faculty developed a lot of content on their own and incorporated pieces developed by others. We are still doing this today. However, today there is a lot more electronic content available to plug into a course! The trend is toward the development of learning objects and complete courses that use these objects. The objects
are reusable and easily moved between different technologies and vendors because of standards. For example, we are now looking at buying learning objects and complete courses to use, much like we have done with textbooks for ages. There are now companies that sell core MBA courses. Clearly, at the organizational and program levels we need not only consider the development and management of e-Learning and digital collaboration tools and infrastructures, we need to develop strategies for acquiring, developing and managing learning content. In 2001, many people are struggling with this content issue including most universities.
Program Success
By the end of the first year, though there had been plenty of bumps and challenges, students reported very high satisfaction and professors could objectively see that successful learning had taken place. Some representative student comments from the 1st year of the program, captured from weekly student feedback, are shown in Figure 8. Blended delivery, enabled by e-Learning technology, made this possible.
The success of the overall program lies in its fulfillment of the original goals. Terry aimed to deliver quality learning, using a blended approach, and to build an effective e-Learning infrastructure. Based on input from all stakeholders, Terry has accomplished these goals. Two of PwC’s goals were employee retention and development. PwC feels these have been accomplished. Students continue to give high praise to the program. In 2000, PwC renewed the contract for another six years. During the first year, we also had two professors from the UGA College of Education evaluate the program, giving it high marks [Schrum & Benson, 2000a, 2000b]. The latest accolade for the program was it being rated one of the top online graduate programs by U.S News and World Report [Special Report: E-Learning, 10/15/01]. Another measure of success is retention. Distance learning research has documented high dropout rates (numbers have ranged as high as 30-80%) and high
dissatisfaction with distance delivered classes. We discussed the high student satisfaction with the program previously. In terms of retention, two classes have graduated to date. Of the 91 who started the program, 89 graduated. Two dropped out because they did not like the format, especially the distance component. Two others had to drop out toward the end of the first year for personal reasons, but they both resumed the program with the second class and graduated. Three of the graduates have gone on to become partners in PwC.
Key Implementation Guidelines
How do we explain the success of the Terry-PwC MBA program? This last section will summarize learnings from the case discussed as a series of guidelines for those wishing to implement e-Learning programs. The guidelines or principles are supported by brief summaries of the case material. Although these guidelines are derived from an academic setting, they are applicable to both organizational and academic environments. Many of the change guidelines are supported in the academic and practitioner literatures. For example, see Kotter [1995] and Johnson and Blanchard (1998) for good practitioner references and Cummings & Worley (2000) and Bostrom (1983) for good academic references.
There must be a felt need or urgency for change
The research literature concludes that for successful organizational change to take place a felt need or urgency for change must be clearly established. This means that the need must exist and key stakeholders must be aware of it. The felt need may be existing problems that need to be solved or opportunities that are worth pursuing. In this case, both Terry and PwC had a number of goals, reflecting critical opportunities, which created a strongly felt need for both parties.
Involve the right people and make sure you have a coalition/leadership powerful enough to make change effort happen
The change literature talks about involving the right people in the change effort and that some of these people need to be powerful enough to make the change happen. The latter group is often referred to as change champions or a guiding coalition. The Terry project leader and the PwC project coordinator were the first guiding coalition. The Terry project leader was a MIS faculty member who was going to teach in the program, chair of the MBA program committee at the start of the program, someone who had foundational knowledge in e-Learning and collaboration technologies, and someone who did a lot of consulting as well. He certainly had the right attributes to lead this project. The PwC coordinator was an ex-academic with a PhD, and thus, understood the academic world well. He was also in a powerful enough position in PwC to make things happen. The skills of these two project leaders and their ability to work together and to mobilize resources in both of their institutions were critical to the development and success of the program. Once the core group of faculty was selected, the guiding coalition changed to include this faculty group. Clearly selecting the best teaching faculty and getting them to work as a team was critical to successful implementation. The project leadership and the program faculty continue to be the guiding coalition behind the Terry-PwC MBA
program. In addition, the hiring of excellent support staff, especially technical support, was and is a key to the success of the program. Building a strong, joint integrative leadership structure to develop and manage such a program is critical. The ongoing management is particularly key. The Terry project leader returned to fulltime faculty status after the first year. The MBA director, who was managing the administrative aspects of the program, picked up his role of managing technical infrastructure and program content. This move created problems because the MBA director did not have the time to manage all aspects of the PwC MBA program and the regular MBA programs as well. Problems included such things as faculty working less as a team, technology improvements being slow or non-existent, and the relationship with PwC staff starting to weaken. To remedy this situation, the leadership of the PwC MBA was taken over by an Associate Dean and the Distributed Learning Support Group was moved under the newly created Chief Information Officer for the Terry College.
Develop mission/vision and communicate it
Implementation of this program hinged on successful development and communication of the vision behind it. Many of the professors, staff and students had no idea what to expect from the start. It would have been very easy for them to participate in a program taught through traditional classroom interactions, since they already knew what that entailed. Making them see that a blended delivery method would also work and work better for this context required their deep support. Such a situation requires development of a clear vision and communicating it through all means possible to garner that support and avoid failure. As outlined earlier, we created both program and technology visions (see Figures 3 and 4) and communicated them continually to relevant stakeholders.
People behave in line with the way they are rewarded, thus, reward them for the behavior you want.
Both change and psychology literatures point out that people behave in line with the way they are rewarded. Thus, in the Terry-PwC program we wanted to make sure we rewarded people for their commitment and performance. The faculty was the key group we focused on. The faculty who teach in the program received summer compensation, first to learn the new technology and develop their course and then to teach in the program. Their Terry-PwC course was also given bonus credits in their regular teaching load, e.g., a 2-credit course counted as 3. All faculty in the program received a laptop along with appropriate teaching resources they need to teach in the program. The recognition they received because they had been “chosen” as the best to teach in the program is also an indirect compensation. The students who participate in the program are rewarded by first having the MBA paid for by PwC while still not forgoing any salary compensation. PwC structures this payment in the form of a student loan that is paid back over the three years following the program. This structure encourages students to stay employed by PwC for five years, two during the program and three years after. Indirect compensation was much the same as for the faculty: by being chosen by the company to participate in the program they are being recognized as one of the top consultants. However, probably the best student
reward is the MBA degree. Most students indicated that they would not have been able to get the degree without this type of program.
Consider blended approach when implementing e-Learning
The change literature would argue that a good intervention is critical to a successful change effort. Our research and experience indicate that a good e-Learning intervention needs to focus on blending approaches and technology. Almost every aspect of the program blends different approaches. The blend between distance and face-to-face education and the blending of technologies are critical keystones of the program. In supporting this blended approach, the faculty use a variety of tools to distribute the class materials while students are at a distance. LearningSpace is good for presenting text material or for holding other files. Some of the faculty create media presentations and put these into LearningSpace to take the place of face-to-face lectures. These approaches are very network intensive because all materials are delivered over a network. Large files that are to be used within a class would be distributed on a CD prior to the start of a course to minimize the network use and the space taken up on all the students’ computers. This meant that the distribution of material had to be balanced between methods: Network and CD. Currently, the Terry College is also working on online live tools for the future. The advantages and disadvantages of all the delivery methods will continue to be assessed and “remixed” to provide the most effective blended course and program delivery. However, the students do the most important blending. While the students are off campus, they have to balance their work life, personal life and student life. For these consultants, they are always worried about the balance between work and personal life, but with the addition of student life, they are typically one step from the breaking point. We address this by imposing rules for hours devoted to work and study. We also address this during the on-campus visits by encouraging social activities, making sure the students know they are not alone. Team building is part of this approach to combat the fatigue. While the teams are important for the learning, they are also critical for the student’s emotional support. While the students are at a distance, they relied on the team to make it to the next on-campus visit. During the visit, team building/rebuilding is a key. Thus, to be effective this meant that we have one more thing to balance. We have to balance team building, social events and instruction. Clearly, for this student balance to be successful, both Terry and PwC personnel have to work together to enforce rules and provide support.
Develop learning communities
Another key factor of the program intervention was the creation of learning communities. The core community is the small student virtual learning teams (4-5 persons) through which much of the initial course-related discussion and work is done. Besides task support, these teams provide strong emotional support. As one student put it “I can’t imagine doing this program without the emotional and spiritual support of my team.” We also continually do activities that develop and reinforce the class as a learning community. Students develop a network of relationships that carries over into their professional work. Students often contact each other for support on PwC consulting projects. This networking among students was one of PwC’s goals for the program.
The initial group of faculty plus key support staff also operated as a team or learning community. The key faculty and staff group, which had formed through the summer trainings prior to the first semester, helped each other through this transition process, sharing learnings and solving problems together as they emerged. Although we have not been able to maintain this community as well as we would like, the initial community of faculty and staff was critical to the successful launch of the program. We feel the key reason for lack of sustainability was the lack of leadership in this area. This issue was discussed in guiding coalition guideline. We also view all people involved in the program as a team or community. Working together as a team, the students, faculty, and Terry and PwC program staff have made enormous progress in establishing effective ways of teaching and learning in a blended e-Learning environment.
Training and support are critical for success
The change literature clearly documents that you should focus on unfreezing (getting the system ready for change) and refreezing (stabilizing and supporting the system after the change has been implemented), and not focus on the change itself. Two of the keys to unfreezing and refreezing are training and support. The initial core faculty cited initial and on-going support and technical and pedagogical training as a major factor in their success as program instructors. The faculty needed to learn the technology and how to put their course into this new paradigm. The initial faculty devoted an entire first summer to learning the technology and developing their courses. As additional faculty were brought into the program, they were trained also. Unfortunately, later groups of faculty have not been trained as well as the first group and this has caused problems. A support structure was put together for faculty to first learn the basic technology and later was available for specific design and development questions. Once the program started, this same support structure would train the students to use the technology and provide technology support to students and faculty during the MBA program. Student Teams are also trained in how to use the technology effectively for supporting distributed teamwork in the Team class. This approach was extremely successful. Due to changes in personnel in 2001, the support is not as good as it has been in the past. You can see the negative effects of this even though we have a well-established program and solid technical infrastructure. Because training and support needs were met, faculty were able to direct their energy to providing effective learning experiences for students, and students could focus on learning, not technology or other types of problems. The bottom-line is simply that training and support are critical for success especially where you are implementing new innovative technologies such as e-Learning or digital collaboration.
Use evolutionary approach focusing on ongoing improvement
One of the principles of change you find cited in the literature is that when there is high uncertainty in an area, you need to use an evolutionary, prototyping or continuous improvement design approach. Although we felt comfortable with the customized program content, we knew fine tuning would be needed in courses to better meet the needs of PwC. However, from a course delivery perspective, e-Learning was a big
unknown to us especially our blended approach. Thus, our vision from the very beginning was to set in-place mechanisms to allow us to continuously improve. This program produced a new reality for the students and faculty involved. Implementing this program required constant flexibility. Two keys made this work: 1) integrated electronic evaluation and feedback, and 2) responsiveness by everyone involved, especially the faculty. Students in the program cited the responsiveness of the faculty and administration to student and PwC concerns as a key factor for success. Each course had an electronic feedback tool built into its structure and program related surveys were done once a week. Students commented on the problems they were facing and sent suggestions for improvements in the technology and course designs. These problems and suggestions were then grouped and sent to the appropriate place. On the individual level, faculty members received feedback on their courses. This varied from broad curricular ideas and content questions to ways to improve details of their course interfaces in LearningSpace based on what other teachers had done. This led to group sharing. Faculty members might then bring up the curriculum and technology questions/issues in regular meetings where effective solutions could be developed and implementation plans created. We view Terry-PwC MBA program as an ongoing or continuous change process. An ongoing change process requires dedicated support over time to adapt both the organization and the technology to changing conditions and technological capabilities. Opportunity-based change, changes that are not anticipated ahead of time but are implemented in response to unexpected opportunity, depends on the ability of the organization to recognize opportunities, issues, and unexpected problems when they arise [Orlikowski and Hofman, 1997]. Establishing a guiding coalition/leadership and providing training and support (guidelines discussed earlier) created the foundation for continuous improvement through both anticipated and opportunity-based changes. .
View target of change from holistic system perspective
The change literature presents many failures that were due to change agents not taking a holistic perspective of the change target. To change an organization, a change agent must have some picture or target of change. In the Terry-PwC MBA implementation, a SocioTechnical Systems (STS) view was taken. STS views the target as a set of interrelated parts: processes, technology, people and structure (Bostrom, 1983). Technology was viewed as an enabler. The focus was on how we could use technology to facilitate the learning process, the interactions between students and students and faculty, and to use it to support team and community structures that were being created. Effective integration of processes, technology, people and structure was the outcome.
Conclusion
We started writing this chapter just before the September 11, 2001 bombings of the World Trade Centers in New York City. This event and others along with the rapid changes in the economy in many countries during this time have created a very different reality in a very short period of time. Reduced budgets and the inability or unwillingness of people to travel has caused many organizations to start looking at e-Learning and digital collaboration as core mechanisms for supporting and doing business. We see this trend continuing.
At the same time, organizations continue to realize the importance of the intellectual capital of their employees. For example, many organizations in the Fall of 2001, that are implementing large layoffs and staff reductions, are faced with the sad reality that much of the intellectual capital of the leaving employees have never been captured, and thus, is lost. The situation reminds us of the quote by Jack Welch that we used in the beginning of this chapter. He argues that organizations win by rising the intellectual capital of the organization every day and that when people are inspired to learn, the energy and excitement generated from the learning is how you energize an organization. PwC and the Terry College through their joint creation of a blended e-Learning based MBA program have raised the intellectual capital in both organizations. The program has also energized both organizations. For example, the learnings and the infrastructure created have helped Terry launch two additional new MBA programs. Our efforts have made enormous impact in establishing and understanding effective ways of teaching and learning in a blended e-Learning environment. This chapter has provided a vehicle for sharing our learning to energize a larger audience.
References
Bostrom, Robert P. (1983). "Designing an Information System: The Socio-Technical Approach," Cause/Effect, 6(2): 22-26. Cummings, Thomas G., & Worley, Christopher, G. (2001). Essentials of Organization development and change. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Pub Johnson, David W., Johnson, Roger T., & Smith, Karl A. (1998). “Cooperative Learning Returns to College”, Change, July/August: 27-35 Johnson, Dirk (2001). “Special Report: Learning -- Next Frontiers,” Newsweek, October 29, 2001 Johnson, Spencer and Blanchard, Ken (1998). Who Moved My Cheese? An Amazing Way to Deal with Change in Your Work and in Your Life. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Kotter, J. P. (1995). “Leading Change: Why Transformational Efforts Fail.” Harvard Business Review, 73(2): 59-65. Moore, Cathleen and Mark Jones (2001). “Comdex: E-learning touted as next killer app”, Computerworld, November 15, 2001, http://www.computerworld.com Orlikowski, Wanda J. and Debra Hofman (1997). “An improvisational model for change management: The Case of groupware technologies”. Sloan Management Review, 38(2): 11-21
Schrum, L., & Benson, A. (2000a). “A case study of one online MBA program: Lessons from the first iteration of an innovative educational experience.” The Business, Education and Technology Journal, 2(2): 38-46. Schrum, L., & Benson, A. (2000b). “Online professional education: A case study of an MBA program through its transition to an online model.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Environments [On-line serial], 4(1). Available: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/jaln-vol4issue1.htm “Special Report: E-Learning,” U.S. News and World Report, October 15, 2001
doc_417144931.pdf
Collaboration is working with each other to do a task. It is a recursive process where two or more people or organizations work together to realize shared goals, (this is more than the intersection of common goals seen in co-operative ventures, but a deep, collective, determination to reach an identical objective
IMPLEMENTATION AND USE OF COLLABORATION TECHNOLOGY IN e-LEARNING: THE CASE OF A JOINT UNIVERSITY-COPORATE MBA 1 (Do not quote without Authors’ Permission) ROBERT P. BOSTROM2
L. Edmund Rast Professor of Business & Ex-Faculty Project Manager for PwC-Terry MBA Project [email protected]
Chris Kadlec
MIS PhD Student & Ex-Technical Project Manager for PwC-Terry MBA Project [email protected]
Dominic Thomas
MIS PhD Student [email protected] Management Information Systems Department Terry College of Business University of Georgia Athens, GA 30602-6256
Abstract
This case study presents the learnings from the implementation and use of collaboration technology in the ongoing University of Georgia (UGA) MBA program created for the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) North American Consulting Group. PwC’s primary goals were consultant retention and development through a flexible and customized MBA program. The program has been very successful in meeting these goals. Flexibility in the program comes primarily from utilizing a combination of face-to-face classroom sessions and distance learning. Small 4-5 people virtual learning teams are used as a critical learning vehicle in the program. Collaboration technologies are the critical enabling agents for classroom, distance and team learning. The case presents a model of how collaboration technologies can be successfully used in technology-supported/eLearning environments. It also presents guidelines, based on the lessons learned, for the implementation of collaboration technology to achieve a successful, “blended” eLearning program. The chapter is based on data gathered from the key stakeholders: faculty, students, implementation team, and PwC and UGA management. Two of the authors were heavily involved in the project: one was overall project manager and faculty member and the other was technical project manager.
1
The authors wish to thank Don Burkhard, the first PricewaterhouseCoopers project coordinator, for his efforts! Without him this program would have never been a success! We also wish to thank all the students in the first graduating class, Class of 2000. The inputs from this class were critical to implementing key changes that lead to the success of this program. 2 Direct all correspondence to the first author.
Background “The biggest growth in the Internet, and the area that will prove to be one of the biggest agents of change, will be in on-line training, or e-learning.” John Chambers, CEO, Cisco "It is about raising the fundamental intellect of the organization every day. It is what makes organizations win. And inspiring people to learn because the excitement and the energy they get from that learning is so enormous; it is how you energize an organization. By making it curious, by making it say wow, by finding WOW's all of the time, by creating new learning. That is what making an organization win is all about." Jack Welch at TechLearn 2001, 10/29/01 Introduction
Many feel that the Internet is perhaps the most transformative technology in history. But for all its power, it is just now being tapped to transform education. At the dawn of the 21st Century, the education landscape is changing due to the Internet. The Internet is enabling us to bring learning to students instead of bringing students to learning. It is allowing for the creation of learning teams and communities that defy the constraints of distance and time, providing access to learning opportunities that were once difficult to obtain. This is true for the schoolhouse, on the college campus, and in corporate training rooms. The most common terms used to describe technology-supported learning via the Internet are e-Learning and online learning. We will use the term e-Learning. The power of e-Learning to transform the educational experience is awesome, but it has many potential risks and challenges. We need to develop guidelines to ensure that e-Learning technologies will enhance, and not frustrate, learning. The focus needs to be on learning not technology. This case study presents the learnings from the implementation and use of collaboration technology in the Terry College of Business (Terry) MBA program, University of Georgia (UGA), created for the Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) North American Consulting Group. Our reference to PwC will denote this specific group not the entire PwC organization. PwC’s primary goals were consultant retention and development through a flexible and customized MBA program. The Terry College was interested in developing a strong position in the executive education market and an eLearning infrastructure. The program has been very successful in meeting both institutions’ goals. The program is a combination of face-to-face classroom sessions and distance learning. Small 4-5 people virtual learning teams are used as a key-learning vehicle in the program. The two-year MBA program was launched in October 1998, and graduated its second class in September 2001. The program has been a huge success for both PwC and UGA. U.S News and World Report rated the program one of the top online graduate programs [Special Report: E-Learning, 10/15/01]. Collaboration technologies are critical enabling agents for classroom, distance and team learning. The case presents a model of how collaboration technologies can be
successfully used in e-Learning environments. It also presents guidelines, based on the lessons learned, for the implementation of collaboration technology to achieve a successful, “blended” e-Learning program. The chapter is based on data gathered from the key stakeholders: faculty, students, implementation team, and PwC and UGA management. Two of the authors were heavily involved in the project: one was overall project manager and faculty member and the other was technical project manager. The chapter will start with a brief introduction to e-Learning and the role of collaboration technologies. This will be followed by an overview of the Terry-PwC MBA program and a detailed look at collaboration technologies used within it. The paper focuses on the time frame from when UGA received the contract to end of the first year of the program. The last section will summarize learnings from the case discussed as a series of guidelines for those wishing to implement e-Learning programs. Although these guidelines are derived from an academic setting, they are applicable to both organizational and academic environments.
e-Learning and Collaboration Technologies
The use of e-Learning technologies for the delivery of training continues to grow at an exponential rate. According to International Data Corporation (IDC), U.S. corporate spending on e-Learning will reach $4 billion in 2001, up from $550 million in 1998. By 2004 this is expected to rise to $14.5 billion. We see similar growth patterns in the U.S. for both k-12 and college education. For example, in 2001, over half of all U.S. colleges/universities now offer online courses and over half of all U.S. k-12 teachers now use the Internet in lessons [Johnson, 2001]. During the1999-2001 time frame, e-Learning has moved from possibility to mainstream -- from “will we?” to “how will we?” At the 2001 Comdex Conference, eLearning was touted the next killer application [Moore & Jones, 2001]. Many feel that eLearning soon will become as ubiquitous as e-mail. The September 11, 2001 bombings of the World Trade Centers in New York City and other events have intensified the focus on e-Learning. Reduced budgets and the inability or unwillingness of people to travel has caused many organizations to start looking at e-Learning and digital collaboration as core mechanisms for supporting and doing business. We see this trend continuing. Until recently, geography, logistics, and scheduling concerns have severely hindered university-company relationships. e-Learning has broken down many of these barriers. Organizations are realizing that learning is at the heart of a company. It is the competitive advantage in an organization. However, organizations have difficulty retaining and developing competent workers especially where a degree is needed to successfully compete for higher positions. Currently, many companies sponsor a valuable employee to return to school; however, they typically lose the services of that employee for the two years of schooling. Companies have little control over scheduling and content in these situations. Many organizations and universities have turned to each other and e-Learning to help solve this problem. This case is an illustration of e-Learning successfully enabling a university-company relationship. Figure 1 shows the time-place matrix, introduced in Chapter 2, used to classify collaboration technology. e-Learning refers to the technology-supported learning activities in any of the four time-place environments. Distance/Distributed/Virtual
Learning refers to learning in which the learner and learning resources are separated by space and possibly also time, cells III and IV in Figure 1.
Blending became one of the keys to success for the Terry-PwC program. Almost every aspect of the program blended different approaches. The blend between distance and face-to-face education was a keystone to this program. A better view of e-Learning technologies and how they can be blended together is captured in Figure 2. Figure 2 shows three primary learning environments: classroom, online anytime and online live. These correspond to cells I, III and IV in the time-place matrix. The program focused on blending these three environments, focusing on classroom and online anytime.
Figure 2: Blended learning
Classroom Learning (Area I: Same time & Place) Online Anytime •Asynchronous •Primarily Area IV (Diff. Time + Place) •Database – Centric (Shared information e-Learning spaces) •Key Tools •Learning Management System •Learning Team Shared Spaces •Discussion Databases •Group and Individual email
Online Live •Synchronous/Real Time •Primarily Area III (Same Time + Diff. Place) •Communication – Centric •Key Tools •Instant Messaging/Chat •Audio/video conferencing •Virtual Classrooms •Electronic meeting tools
Online anytime technologies support learning anytime-anyplace. They primarily are database-centric creating shared information spaces for learners and faculty to work in at different times and places. Online live technologies provide same time interaction between learners and instructors at a distance through collaboration tools such as chat or a virtual classroom. Online live and online anytime correspond to the terms Synchronous and Asynchronous Shared Learning used in e-Learning model presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 2 also introduced a third type referred to as Independent e-Learning where learners take courses on an individual basis. This type of learning environment would use the same technologies as online anytime, thus, we did not include it in our model. Many view e-Learning only in terms of online live and online anytime technology, both of which facilitate distance or virtual learning. However, the dotted lines in Figure 2 indicate that these technologies can also be used to support classroom learning. The Terry-PwC program uses these e-Learning technologies when students are on campus as well as when they are back on the job. When on campus, these technologies form a “digital surround” for classroom learning. We found that using elearning as a “digital surround” enhances classroom learning and provides a great way to introduce students to e-learning. Whatever the learning environment, the following technologies are needed to make e-Learning happen: •Distribution Technology: technologies that provide information distribution and exchange allowing distance learning to take place. Although the primary focus of most eLearning is the Internet/Web, sometimes CDs or other distribution technology are used. The focus on the use of the Internet is why the term “online” is frequently used in describing e-Learning. •Learning Management or Content/Course management software: technologies that simulate the experience of a classroom while studying both on-campus and from a distance.
•Communication and collaboration software offers a rich, shared, virtual workspace in which instructor and students can interact one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many in order to learn together anytime and anyplace. Examples: •Asynchronous/online anywhere tools: e-mail, discussion databases, streaming audio/video. •Synchronous/online live (Real Time) tools: Instant Messaging, Chat, Audio/Video conferencing. •Course support software offers a rich set of tools including electronic libraries and other instructional programs to support specific courses. •Server environment software: technologies to support client-server applications outlined above. The core software in most e-Learning efforts is a Learning Management or Content Management System (LMS/LCS). A LMS/LCS manages the interaction between the learner and learning resources. The primary functionality provided is a database repository for learning resources (syllabus, articles, assessments, etc.). The primary difference between LMS and LCS is that a LMS usually provides additional functionality such as a course catalog, a registration system, tracking and reporting learner’s progress, etc. whereas a LCS focuses on learning content management for a given course or set of learning topics. The Terry program used a Lotus Notes based LCS, LearningSpace, which will be discussed in depth later. The LCS/LMS usually provides a limited set of collaboration tools that needs to be supplemented with other tools. The Terry program did this. From an e-Learning perspective, collaboration technologies can be viewed as the primary tools that one can use to facilitate learning through collaboration, collaborations between teacher-student and student-student. In chapter 2, e-Learning technologies were classified in the category for integrated collaboration technology, as these incorporate a variety of digital collaboration functionality: communication (email, instant messaging, streaming audio/video), shared information spaces (LMS/LCS, discussion databases), and coordination (calendaring and scheduling). Although a majority of e-learning technology is collaboration-based, some of the technology cannot be classified as collaboration tools. Two examples would be registration and tracking features in a LMS and content software used to support specific courses. An example of the later was the computer-based instructional and testing software used to develop students’ baseline-knowledge in statistics before starting the statistics course in the Terry-PwC MBA program.
Terry-PwC MBA program Brief Overview
Founded in 1912, the Terry College of Business is the flagship business school in the state of Georgia, one of the oldest business schools in the US, and one of 13 schools and colleges at the oldest state-chartered university in the country. The Terry College is home to one of the nation's ten largest undergraduate programs - with over 5,500 students - and one of the most selective MBA programs on any campus, public or private. The Financial Times, Business Week, Forbes and U.S. News & World Report consistently rank its undergraduate and graduate programs among the best. With roots dating back to Samuel Lowell Price in London in 1849, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) has a long history of providing consultation services.
Currently, PwC serves businesses and organizations in more than 150 countries and territories with its over 150,000 staff people and 9,000 partners. PwC’s approach focuses on using multi-disciplined teams that have a global industry scope and experience as well as knowledge of relevant issues and regulations. PwC’s area of expertise spans 24 market sectors, grouped into three clusters: Consumer and Industrial Products, Financial Services, Technology Info-Com and Entertainment. It is within this parent company environment that the PwC North American Consulting Group operates. We use PwC in this chapter to refer solely to the PwC North American Consulting Group with which the Terry College worked with to establish the Terry-PwC MBA program. The PwC two-year MBA program started with a proposal presented to PwC by the Terry College in March 1998. The goal was to create a program that would provide benefits to PwC, its employees and Terry. PwC would gain a customized learning venue for highly valued employees that would encourage them to stay with the company, without removing them from the work force for two years. The employees would gain an opportunity to earn an MBA, obtain intense professional development without foregoing knowledge of current events in the company, and develop a network of relationships with other PwC consultants in the class. Terry would gain a broader knowledge and experience-base from an e-Learning program linked with a large business consulting firm. The goal was to have approximately 40-50 students in each class. A number of key features distinguish the PwC program and help make it successful. The program is mission and outcome driven. The specialized curriculum supports and enables the blended delivery mode. The team and collaboration focus creates an environment where the sum of the parts exceeds the parts alone which increases the amount of learning taking place and speeds it up. At the same time, the student workload management ensures that the students have time to interact on a regular basis to complete assignments and to successfully carry out their jobs. On-going feedback and evaluation mechanisms allow areas for improvement to be identified and effectively crafted. Finally, the support infrastructure and program leadership creates an environment where technology is used for learning management and collaboration that enable successful learning to take place. These key distinguishing features are described in more depth in the following sections.
Mission and Outcome Driven
From the very beginning of the project, outcomes or goals of the two groups were made explicit and joint program and technology mission statements were developed. The program mission statement and guiding principles are shown in Figure 3. The focus from day one was quality in terms of creating a program that met PwC outcomes and Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) MBA accreditation standards. Unlike most MBA programs that are exclusively designed by the academic side, the Terry-PwC program was developed through collaborative efforts of both parties. PwC personnel were involved in all aspects of the program: course design, scheduling, selection and on-going management of students, etc. In designing the program, our focus was on selecting the best teaching faculty, building relevancy in all courses, creating a collaborative learning community, and balancing classroom and e-Learning environments.
A good e-Learning technology platform was the key to achieving the program mission and making the program successful. Thus, we also developed a technology mission statement and guiding principles to keep our efforts focused. The mission and guidelines are shown in Figure 4. Our focus was on the learner and the learning process, not the technology. We wanted to create ways to use technology to support and enable learning. In 1998, e-Learning technology was still evolving. Thus, our focus was on tested and proven technology and for it to be effective it had to be compatible with PwC’s technology infrastructure. Since both Terry and PwC were new to e-Learning, the project was viewed as a way for both parties to learn how to implement and effectively use eLearning.
Figure 4: Technology Mission and Guiding Principles Mission: To blend classroom learning environments with e-Learning technology to maximize learning experiences for PricewaterhouseCoopers employees. Guiding Principles: • The focus is on the learner and learning, not technology. • Learning is difficult, use technology as tools to support learning. • e-Learning technology will be used both on and off campus. • Use only tested and proven technology that is compatible with PwC technical environment. • Apply and integrate learning materials and activities with PwC technology and work experience wherever applicable. • Learn together how to implement and effectively use e-Learning
Each party had some very specific outcomes entering into this program. PwC had three primary goals. Employee retention, their first goal, was key when the program started but became less of a focus as time went on. Consultant turnover was a real problem in 1998 when the program was being designed and initiated. PwC used this MBA program as a way to retain key employees. Their second goal was to experience distance learning in a different way than they had implemented it in the past. PwC has extensive training systems. They bring students to locations to have face-to-face training and also have used distance learning. This blended MBA program gave them some experience with a different design. Consultant development, their third goal, is still a key motivation in continuing this program. Even with a current slowdown in the economy and with it layoffs in PwC, the company has kept a long-term view and therefore has chosen to continue this program to expand the skills level and intellectual talent of their consultants. The Terry College had a number of goals also. Two key goals were to become less dependent on State money and to explore emerging technologies as they relate to education. Terry wanted to make sure that they were ready for any changes in the way that education was going to be delivered in the future. This would mean a significant investment if they were to explore this on their own. The PwC program provided funding support for startup costs and the development of an e-Learning infrastructure. After the startup of the program, there would be revenue to invest into both this program and other programs. Producing new revenues meant that the Terry College would not have to react drastically to budget fluctuations at the State level. Additionally, the college wanted to gain a reputation in executive education and establish a valuable business connection.
Specialized Curriculum
Two years of study begin with a year of common courses covering core business areas tailored to PwC consultants’ world and lead to specializations in finance or
marketing in the second year. PwC and Terry agreed to limit the second year specializations to these two tracks in order to facilitate PwC’s outcomes. On the course level, content was also customized to the needs of the program. For example, the typical core accounting content at Terry spans financial and managerial areas and takes place over two courses. This content was collapsed into one course tailored to a consultant. Though it was redesigned, the program still maintains the academic core content to meet MBA accreditation standards. Terry’s willingness to collaboratively customize their MBA was one of the key reasons PwC selected the TERRY proposal.
Blended Delivery Mode
The program vision was to blend face-to-face and distance learning for each course. This led to an initial agreement that face time for the program’s courses would equal 50% of the in-class time allotted to a traditional MBA course. The remaining half of the traditional course time would be covered through distance learning while out-ofclass study time usually expected from students would remain constant in either setting. A typical course like Statistics would have 16 hours in the traditional classroom and 16 through distance media. The first year of the program starts with a two-week orientation and initial classroom sessions followed by three additional four-day weekends visits during the year. Thus, every three months the professors and students touch base and participate in any activities requiring the information-rich communication channels available during faceto-face learning time. The second year starts out with a one-week session followed by four four-day weekend sessions evenly distributed during the year. For the faculty who were to teach in the program, all new to distance learning, the 50-50 rule presented a problem: How to transfer a course that has been taught for years face-to-face into a mixed or blended context was a major issue. There were different approaches to this problem. One of the first approaches was to teach in the same order, as always, and when it is time for the distance portion, try to fit the course at that point into the technology. This approach worked well for courses that built on previously taught material like Accounting. Some faculty would teach all major concepts in on-campus time, and during the distance portion, they would have the students’ practice what had been demonstrated. This approach worked well for Statistics. The students had the big picture idea of what was going on, and it was later cemented when they practiced it. With this approach, the face-to-face time is leveraged. Some faculty would completely rearrange their course so that activities could be done during the face-to-face time with little lecture, leaving lecture for presentations while at a distance. This worked for Operations and Legal courses. Another approach was to leverage some of the distance time. The Ethics class started out with lecture and tried to get the students ready for some ethical conflicts that would be handled at a distance. These ethical conflicts required thoughtful time before advancing and were therefore perfect for the distance portion. The key to effectively blending the courses ended up being that each mode, either distance or face-to-face, had advantages and disadvantages, and the course would have to be designed to take these into account. As we learned how to be successful in each course, we adjusted the 50-50 rule giving some courses more face-to-face time and some less. However, we are not experts in this area.
There is a great need for research and sharing of practice on how to effectively blend different approaches and technologies. A variety of technologies are blended to support both on-campus and distance portions of courses. Additionally, student teams learn a variety of collaboration technology options to meet their needs. These technologies range from email and instant messaging services to team information spaces. These technologies have been the key elements in individual teams’ success. All technologies are used when students are on campus and when they are working from a distance. These technologies will be discussed in more depth in the next section.
Team and Collaboration Focus
The program designers aimed to retain the importance of collaboration, especially through teamwork, that characterizes successful MBA programs. Research has shown that collaborative learning is very effective, when done well, in college environments [Johnson et. al., 1998]. In addition, research has shown that the most successful distance learning courses were with class sizes of 15 or less. A smaller class is much easier to facilitate through technology especially when maximum interaction is wanted. Since the Terry-PwC program was looking at a class size of around 50, the effective use of learning teams and collaboration technology was imperative. Thus, the Terry-PwC program focused on building strong virtual learning teams of 4 or 5 people, where much of the initial discussion and work is done within each team, then between teams or between teams and the instructor. A great deal of time and effort is expended to ensure the development of effective virtual teams and the development of the overall class as a learning community. Most of the first week in the two week initial on-campus visit is devoted to team/class development. This is done through a team skills course that focuses on the effective development and facilitation of virtual teams. During this class, teams establish mutual goals and mission statements, work out a code of conduct that each member is willing to support, and develop a media plan that outlines how the team is going to use collaboration technologies to work together. It was our feeling that for a virtual learning team to be successful, the team needed to have a good technology platform that members are committed to! The development of the media plan facilitates commitment.
Student Workload Management
A balance had to be struck between the demands of maintaining the students’ jobs and attending college. A typical workweek for consultants is 60-70 hours, and the MBA program might demand up to that many hours during peak times. As a result the Terry faculty agreed to limit study time during off-campus periods to 15 hours per week, and PwC limited work time to 40 hours. This joint rule on timesharing was monitored through feedback mechanisms. Although there were continuous problems on both sides implementing this rule, this joint time-sharing rule was critical to the success of the program.
On-going Feedback and Evaluation
Regular feedback is built into the program. Every week students send in anonymous online feedback focusing on their experience in the program. While this feedback
includes more discrete items such as time spent on assignments and on PwC project work, it also gives them a chance to identify any problems they are facing. The program faculty and administrators receive this data and review it weekly. As issues such as assignments far exceeding the specified number of hours arise, solutions are crafted such as using an on-campus MBA student to benchmark the assignments or redesigning the assignments. In one case a professor, after viewing his own assignments benchmarked, decided his course should occupy a three-hour time slot instead of two. Course and program changes are often based on this feedback. During on-campus visits especially early in the program, feedback was gathered daily to ensure we were doing the right things. These surveys were done using LearningSpace. This survey and assessment functionality is critical to e-Learning and common in most LMS/LCS. We would never have been able to continuously improve the program without this type of collaboration technology to gather input from 40-50 students.
Support Infrastructure
Our research into e-Learning had clearly shown that without adequate support, the program was doomed to failure. Thus, providing support was a guiding principle from day one. When the program was launched in October 1998, the program had three fulltime employees and nine part-time MBA graduate assistants supporting the faculty and students. They were referred to as the Distributed Learning Group (DLG). The three fulltime roles consisted of a Lotus Notes Administrator, a Faculty Liaison who focused on effective use of technology by faculty, and a Technical Support Assistant, a person who provided backup to Notes Administrator and did general technical support. This support team provided initial technology training and then served as an on-going technology help desk providing support throughout the program. One of the key issues that arose in developing support was bridging the competence gap. First, we had to get technical staff trained in Notes, LearningSpace and other technology tools, then train faculty and students. While some of the faculty and students tended to develop into tinkerers/experts interested in playing with and innovating their own uses of technology tools, others tended to be ‘good soldiers’/novices who expected to be told the right things to do, how and when. The support infrastructure had to be designed with enough flexibility to accommodate both of these user types. The PwC program achieved this by providing initial support through training and weekly meetings that mixed the support staff with the users and focused on specific technology topics. These meetings addressed such topics as the scheduling tool, instant messaging, or developing presentations with audio, depending on the faculty’s requests. Program leadership was also a critical issue in support infrastructure development. In a joint program like this, we needed strong leadership from both UGA and PwC. Our leadership team consisted of three main players. From the UGA side, one faculty member who had extensive technological knowledge and tenure in the University system served as program and project manager for technical and curriculum/content issues. The knowledge and experience of this person served to garner the respect and open channels between technical staff, faculty and administrators. The TERRY MBA Director managed the administrative aspects of the program. PwC had a person that coordinated all activities from PwC perspective. Initially,
he was devoted fulltime to this program and once the program was implemented it was still a major time commitment. Once the contract was signed, PwC also designated a Partner, who served on the Executive Committee, to oversee the project. The coordinator could use his access to this top management person, if needed, to facilitate PwC’s support for the program. Utilizing his staff and other PwC resources as needed, the PwC coordinator is involved in all aspects of the program: administration of contract and all travel arrangements for students, program/course design, selection of students, and on-going management of student issues such as violations in project time commitments. Students are first nominated by partners and selected by PwC management. Then students have to be accepted by the Terry College Admissions Office to get into the MBA program. Without this strong leadership commitment from PwC, the program would not have been a success. The strong leadership commitment from the Faculty project leader and PwC project coordinator, their ability to effectively work together and to mobilize resources in both of their institutions was critical to the development and success of this program in the early phases. Any university or business looking at developing such a relationship needs to clearly focus on building an integrative leadership structure to develop and manage the program.
Implementation Process
The first year of the program ended in October of 1999. Getting there required addressing seven critical stages, listed below and described in the following paragraphs: Pre-Planning, Planning, Technologies Implementation, Faculty Training, Starting the Face-to-Face Component and Starting the Distance Component, and On-going Evaluation. The complete project start-up time line is shown in Figure 5.
Pre-Planning
While our discussion is based on the time period from when the contract was signed forward, some key faculty at the Terry College had been investigating e-Learning technologies prior to this period. They had done research into how different technologies could be used in an e-Learning environment. While they did not have a definitive system in mind, they were able to pick a couple of products that seemed to show the most promise. Thus, at the point that PwC and Terry got into serious discussions, there was not only expertise in-house, but there was also a conceptual framework already forming in the mind of the faculty member that ended up being a key lead for the project. The contract itself, signed in March, ended up answering many questions as to how the program was to be delivered giving the planning phase some boundaries to work within. Time would be close to 50% on campus (compared to the number of classroom hours for a traditional MBA) and 50% off. There would be 40-50 students per class. Each class would take 2 years to graduate and a new class would start yearly. Classwork would be scheduled 50 weeks a year with two weeks off at Christmas. The first class would start in seven months, October 1998. The state of the technologies gave some other boundaries. Dial-up was the standard way for students and faculty to get to the Internet from their homes or hotels. Learning Content Management Systems were adequate but did not have a real program feel and there would have to be some customized solutions implemented. Pre-planning played a critical role in the program’s success. Once the program’s vision, outcomes and guiding principles were established, feasibility had to be ensured. Feasibility analysis has economic, technical and organizational components. From an economic standpoint, analyzing the cost of implementation and on-going support led to an understanding of the budgets that would be necessary. On the technical side, various software programs and their hardware requirements were researched. This technology was then compared to the existing infrastructure to identify additional investments needed and to understand how the learning content would have to be designed and blended to use the technology effectively. For example, since Lotus Notes already existed as a platform in PwC, looking for a Notes-based system that met the program’s requirements became a high priority. One key to the organizational analysis was creating a blended delivery design for the program. Faculty workloads and attitudes about participation and commitment levels were examined. Many faculty members and PwC staff involved expressed deep reservations about the learning quality in an entirely virtual program. Yet this was essential to the program, as the PwC participants would have to continue working offcampus while studying in the program. The blend of face-to-face and virtual delivery served both organizational needs.
Planning
Once the contract was signed and the deadlines were real, planning started. Who was going to manage the program all the way down to who would make the coffee when the students were on campus had to be decided, and people needed to be appointed or hired. At this time, the program started hiring the new infrastructure support group, the Distance Learning Group (DLG), which would then purchase and implement the specific hardware and software packages necessary for the program. The first two staff members
were hired and working as of June 1998. At the same time, key project leaders handled the logistics for conducting faculty training and student orientation. Specific tasks ranged from setting up a faculty listserv and discussion databases to allow faculty to share experiences, problems, and solutions to developing training materials that would cover primary functional areas for the faculty. The Terry project leader working with the MBA faculty committee developed the curriculum and got it approved by the MBA committee and the Terry faculty.
Technologies Implementation
Once some of the basic structure was put into place, such as servers and server and client software, the DLG explored how they could be used to fit the needs of the students and faculty. As deficiencies were found, new technologies were researched or developed and then implemented. This ended up being analogous to building a house with a general plan and working out the details as it gets built. While this does not seem to be the most logical way of handling the implementation of a professional program, both the Terry College and PwC entered into this agreement to learn more about e-Learning. This also set the mindset for the program for the first year: Plan, Develop, Implement, Evaluate, and Adjust. This was done at every level from the Director down to the student. Since the technologies were to be managed internally, the new DLG staff had to obtain training on them and install them. They spent many hours debugging and configuring the necessary servers and networks, setting up workstations for faculty, and establishing procedures for managing the on-going needs of the program. As one of the original staff members put it, “Don’t underestimate the need for establishing procedures.” These procedures then allowed the hiring and training of new staff with less of a time lag to explain tacit procedures. This was particularly important because DLG used a lot of part-time students. Technologies implementation involved checking for not only physical linkages and functionality of the system but also refinements to the design of the architecture. As faculty feedback began to arrive during weekly and sometimes more frequent meetings in July and August, the support staff worked continuously to derive the maximum value from the LearningSpace software and other software chosen for the distance elements of the program. For example, a program-wide meta-course was designed as an improvised tool for program-level interaction and management.
Selection and Training of Faculty
From our research on distance learning, we knew that the faculty/trainer role was key. We decided to go after the best teaching faculty we had in each area regardless of their technology background. We felt that good teachers would have the best skills to use technology effectively both in the classroom and from a distance. We knew we could teach them to use the technology, but it would be much more difficult and time consuming to teach them how to be good teachers. Technology readiness varied greatly, from a few faculty who had just started using email and were somewhat familiar with word processing to very technology savvy users. The training dealt with this by covering a variety of technology options, appealing to the knowledgeable users, while also including a four-week tutorial on core functions of
the LearningSpace software and how to apply them to each individual’s content, appealing to the novices. Faculty training began with a focus on the functional areas of their teaching and how specific technologies could fit specific tasks in each area. These functional areas came from their standard classroom teaching and included: how to lecture online; how to run a discussion online; how to assign and collect papers online; how to administer exams online; how to hold office hours online; and how to facilitate student teamwork online. Some larger issues also arose, such as how to integrate the distance component of a course with the face-to-face time. This issue was a source of anxiety for many, but ultimately required simply getting into the semester and experiencing the solution appropriate for each course. The feedback and collaboration between faculty during and between sessions, through the listserv, discussion databases and during weekly meetings also led to dynamic adjustment of the training when issues arose. Toward the end, this training process had created a working team composed of faculty and support personnel who could then help each other respond to challenges during the first semester.
On Campus Learning Begins
On October 17, 1998 the new students arrived on campus, and the face-to-face component began. These two weeks were intense. Students had to master initial content, the technology, and become oriented to each other in a new environment. Several sessions focused on developing and facilitating learning teams and student relationships. Research has shown that these relationships are valuable in maintaining a personal sense or feel during distant interaction. The personal feel relates to the individual’s or teams sense of information richness within the distance technologies. Face-to-face conversations contain the richest information, full of feedback capabilities, multiple cues, and a personal focus. Research indicates that students who have a prior face-to-face sense of each other and trust intact can move more easily into and use online learning environments even if they are using tools that do not offer as rich of information channel as face-to-face interaction. As such, prior face-to-face interactions affect the effective use of technologies. Groups having these experiences report more comfort using less rich information technology, such as audio and email instead of video and synchronous chat. Forging personal connections requires information richness in a variety of personal details. Thus, this activity seems best handled in face-to-face environments. Trying to make personal connections happen effectively in a totally virtual context can lead to a larger investment of time and energy. Thus, the first two face-to-face weeks served the typical course role of beginning content delivery along with a more critical role of developing the relationships and teams which would enable the transition to distance learning.
Distance Learning Begins
When the two-week campus visit ended, faculty and students had to rely on the distance technologies for the first time. Professors would record lecture audio tracks synchronized with on-screen slide presentations. These bundled lecture files would then be uploaded to their course in LearningSpace. When students logged on their computers they would automatically download all of the new content files and upload all of their work, through
the replication function in Notes. Replication allowed them to continue studying and interacting with the class even when disconnected from the Internet. For example, a student could be on a plane between consulting jobs, listening to lectures and reading and responding to the latest updates in the online threaded discussions. Arriving at their destination they could dial into the Internet again and touch base with everyone else’s updates. They could study disconnected without being disassociated and depersonalized.
Evaluation and Feedback lead to Improvements
Throughout the semester students sent in feedback to their professors and to the program staff. When classes ended, the students filled out evaluation forms. The suggestions from feedback and evaluations helped craft program improvements. Students could compare and contrast the formats of the different courses they were taking and helped spread knowledge of best practices from professor to professor. The professors would then meet and share tips and techniques. On the support staff side, procedures for keeping the technology running smoothly improved. For example, we learned that due to the dial-up connections that some students used, lecture files needed to be limited to chunks of about 20-minutes or less, or about 1.5 to 2 megabytes. We also found that short lectures from a distance were a lot more effective from a learning perspective as well.
Collaboration Technology Used in the Program
The Terry College looked at a wide range of technologies in an effort to find a good mix for a blended program. We looked at the benefits and drawbacks, trying to leverage strengths and minimize weaknesses. In making our technology selections for the program, we used the two models introduced earlier in this paper, time-space technology matrix, see Figure 1, and the blended learning environments, see Figure 2. The program focused on blending the three environments outlined in Figure 2: online anywhere, online live and classroom. This section overviews the technology used in each of these three environments.
Online Anywhere
Online anywhere technology allows access to information anytime, anyplace. It is usually the core technology for most e-Learning efforts. The primary technologies used in this area are shared information spaces and e-mail. For the Terry College this meant that lectures, handouts, reading material, and classroom conversations would have to be digitized, and then, these electronic documents could be visited by the instructor and students when and where it was convenient. The initial faculty and support investment in teaching a course would be high, but following offerings of the same course would already have most of the content ready. Research has indicated that initial course development work takes about three times more for an online anytime course. Having the courses in electronic format also meant that the course could be easily updated on the fly. A major drawback for Terry was that faculty did not know how to develop this type of instruction for this learning environment. This is why faculty training was such a key issue for the program’s success. For PwC the advantages were that students could work on the courses during off work time hours. They did not have to be transported
from their work, and they did not have to miss work. Since PwC employees already used this type of communication technology (Lotus Notes), no additional PwC infrastructure was needed. This also facilitated student training. Since the program was going to be a blended, distance and face-to-face education, there had to be a mix of technologies. It was decided early on that there would need to be an overarching technology that would hold both distance and face-to-face course materials. This would allow the students and faculty to access and post information to a common space. We briefly introduced this type of technology earlier as a Learning Management System (LMS) or Learning Content Management System (LCS). We chose a LCS from Lotus called LearningSpace. In looking at the time and place model, LMS/LCS fits primarily in area IV, different time-place, although they can be used to support all three of the other areas in the time-place model. We started with LearningSpace version 2.5 and have moved to version 3.0. Since the program began, Lotus and IBM have developed newer versions 4.0 and 5.0. These latter versions took more of a commercial or corporate focus and web-centric approach. Many of the key academic features, such as electronic assignments, were dropped in version 4.0. In addition, the Lotus Notes infrastructure was replaced with a server-side database one. This meant by upgrading to version 4.0 we would lose the replication feature of Lotus Notes, forcing students to be connected to the Web to use the system. Based on these concerns and others, we decided to stay with version 3.0. Since PwC used Lotus Notes for all the consultants in the program, LearningSpace, which is a Lotus Notes application, was a natural fit. One advantage of LearningSpace over some of the other LCSs was its ability to replicate a complete copy of all learning materials on student computers as noted earlier. Replication allows students to work on course activities while disconnected from the Internet. For the Terry College, this had the additional benefit of decreasing the reliance on their network. Concern about network outages would not be as critical because students would have a copy of the course on their laptops. Each LearningSpace course has five Notes databases, four that the student has access to and one that is for the faculty member to manage grades and make tests. The first four are the ones the student uses directly: 1) Schedule - Contains the syllabus for the class outlining learning activities with links to all the associated support materials. 2) MediaCenter – This is the electronic library for each course that holds all handouts, articles, recorded lectures, etc. with links to other resources. 3) CourseRoom – Roughly equivalent to the classroom. It provides for threaded discussions and is where assignments can be handed in by the students and handed back by the faculty member. 4) Profiles – This holds student information, pictures of the students and student portfolios of grades. 5) Assessments – This database holds quizzes, tests, and surveys along with the grade book for the faculty member. Students complete assessments by accessing them from the Schedule database.
Figure 6 shows the Instructor LearningSpace interface to the Schedule database for the Teams Course, which is the first course taken in the program. The student interface would be the same except they would not have tool bar for creating and editing entries. The interface is a typical Lotus Notes interface with a views menu on the left-hand side and documents listed in center of the screen. LearningSpace is available through a Lotus Notes client or a Web Browser. The Notes version, pictured in Figure 6, has more functionality in it and must be used to create documents, but both interfaces look similar. The Schedule database captures the course syllabus as a collection of organized Notes Documents that describe learning activities. The organization for this class was by module but could have been by week or some other organization type. For example, in module 6, there are four Notes documents describing four different classes. The student would simply click on a document, “Class 6:…”, to get information for that class period. The student can see learning activities displayed in calendar format by clicking on “by Calendar” button. The student can easily switch to different databases by clicking on icons just below “LearningSpace” in the lefthand corner or through links embedded in Schedule documents. (For example, the “table with people around it” icon designates the CourseRoom database. Clicking on it will move you to the CourseRoom interface.)
The following scenario outlines how students would use LearningSpace and other tools to accomplish a learning activity from a distance: • Read assigned readings as outlined in Schedule database entry (readings in textbook or accessed from MediaCenter) • Students listen to mini lecture with slides when desired, accessing session from MediaCenter.
Students post a note in a discussion in CourseRoom database. Instructor or classmates respond to questions or ask for clarifications. Instructor or students may create a most frequently asked questions discussion in CourseRoom for students. • Team or class discusses readings using a discussion in CourseRoom. Certain students or a team may be asked to start discussion by reviewing/critiquing a reading. • Students or teams may complete a homework assignment related to the readings (this may be one the student creates from their own work environment). Teams will use their TeamRoom shared information space to work on homework from a distance. They may supplement this with real time communication (ICQ, NetMeeting) and phone conferences. • Assignments will be electronically submitted (submit as a LearningSpace assignment in CourseRoom) to professor for grading. The instructor uses special instructor facilities in CourseRoom to grade assignments. Graded homework will be automatically returned to students (assignments posted in CourseRoom as graded), and their grade will be posted to the electronic gradebook in Profiles and Assessment databases. • Students may also work through some self-assessment questions or exercises to check their understanding of material. These may be purchased or developed instructional programs that would be launched from Schedule or a LearningSpace assessment that was developed by the instructor using facilities in the Assessment database. • Students may also be required to write an entry in their electronic journal that integrates and applies knowledge gained from learning activities to their work situation. The journal could be implemented using a CourseRoom Discussion that keeps specific entries of each student separately, allowing access only to personal entries and overall access to the instructor or by using a separate Notes database. Finding an effective workspace for learning teams was a problem for us. LMS/LCS usually offers some team support workspaces and facilities but these are usually limited, and thus, additional technology is usually needed. Although LearningSpace handles team assignments and grading, it does not provide any team support technology. However, Lotus offers another product, TeamRoom that met our needs. Since TeamRoom, like LearningSpace, was a Lotus Notes application, it was easy to move documents between TeamRoom and LearningSpace. The class was divided up into teams, and these teams were used in all classes. This team approach was a central focus to the program and needed a technology to support it. TeamRoom was slightly modified for this purpose, and it gave a place for teams to meet in a virtual space (using discussion databases) and a place for them to share documents and references. We modified TeamRoom to hold additional team development material such as team purpose and outcomes, code of conduct and media plan. TeamRoom also allowed the creation of information spaces for subteams and the scheduling (due dates, etc.) and assigning of responsibility for course assignments. •
Online Live
Online live technology primarily supports real-time communication while communicators are in different places. We trained faculty and students in the use of audio-video conferencing (NetMeeting) and instant messaging (ICQ). The advantage for the Terry College was that faculty could still lecture to or hold office hours with students
but not be required to be at a certain location. This meant that faculty could teach while at a vacation home or while overseas at a conference. The College could offer the best faculty for the program while offering the faculty member the flexibility to pursue other interests. For PwC, students could be on any project and would not have to spend time traveling to one location. Students could also use this technology to support their teamwork from a distance. The first drawback was the coordination of a common time for faculty and students to meet. During the time of any one course, faculty and students were in many different time zones, some even overseas. Finding a time that was not too late and when all concerned were not at work was difficult. Some faculty did work out electronic office hours that used these tools with regular phone contact if needed. Students used instant messaging as a way to stay in contact with each other and for quick questions and file transfers to teammates. Most of the learning teams used audio conference calls through a phone bridge once a week to coordinate team activities. PwC, not Terry, supported these conference calls. Teams were organized so that team members were in same or adjacent time zones wherever possible to facilitate real time meetings. The remainder of the time they coordinated work through the shared information space technology, TeamRoom, described above. All teammates were usually connected into TeamRoom during their conference call to access and share relevant information and files. The other more critical drawback at the start of the program was the state of the Internet. High-speed connections were not readily available in residential settings or in hotels. This has been changing, and thus, we are actively encouraging the use of more online live tools and investigating the addition of new tools especially a virtual classroom tool such as Centra, WebEx, Lotus Sametime or Horizon Live. Virtual classroom tools have added playback facilities that allow a student to review a session or experience it if they could not attend. The playback feature deals with the problem of getting people together all at the same time. These tools are being used to effectively train students in both academic and corporate environments. We feel they will also be excellent tools to support our learning teams. By the end of 2001, we hope to use a virtual classroom in the PwC and other MBA programs.
Classroom
Classroom learning happens in the same place and the same time. We explored technology that would support a classroom setting or a face-to-face meeting. We also wanted students to have available and use the same technology when they were on campus that they used from a distance. Our challenge in this area was to get faculty to use technology as a “digital surround” to support classroom activities. Since all students had laptops and brought them to class, shared information spaces and tools could be accessed and used. For example, LearningSpace surveys or Instant Messaging chats could be used within the classroom to support case discussions and engage students in other ways. Some faculty used collaboration technology in this way, but it was limited. Most of the time technology was only used to access class resources in LearningSpace. It was limited for two reasons: we did not focus on the technology’s broader uses in our training, and we needed better tools to support this, such as electronic meeting support tools or virtual
classroom tools. We are currently exploring integrating these types of technology into our infrastructure. Area “II” in the time-place matrix, different time and same place, is usually not addressed in e-Learning discussions. It implies a common physical place where students or faculty could leave things for each other. We have this capability when students are on campus since they are always in the same classroom and materials are left for students there. However, our focus was not on a shared physical place, but rather a focus on shared information or virtual spaces that could be shared at same or different times. Thus, even if one is in the same place, such as the classroom, we use collaboration technology to enable people to share information through virtual spaces.
Different Levels Involved in e-Learning
One of the biggest problems encountered using LearningSpace for the program was its sole focus on the “class” versus the larger MBA program. The original design of LearningSpace did not allow for a program view. While each class is important for the student, it is the program or how each class fits with the others that make an MBA degree valuable. As a solution, another LearningSpace course was created to provide this program view, but this solution still lacked many important features such as an easy way for the students to see an overall picture of what was due for them in any one of their classes. This problem highlights the point that there are multiple levels that you need to support with e-Learning technology. Most organizations would have the four levels described in Figure 7. Using the Terry-PwC program as an example, we have already discussed the individual-team and course levels. Students work individually and in teams within a given course. Technology was needed to support both individual-team and course levels. We also needed support for overall management of the program in terms of things such as integrated scheduling and program-wide discussions. Similarly, from an organizational perspective, it would be useful to have technology support the management and integration of different learning programs. For example, the PwC MBA is one of five MBA programs in the Terry College. Terry continually has problems with scheduling, resource allocation, sharing information, etc. between these programs that eLearning technology could support. In an organizational setting, the organizational view would most likely be managed by the Human Resource area as it schedules and tracks employees through the company’s many training programs.
Figure 7: Different Levels Involved in e-Learning
Organizational level Organizational-level: The management of multiple programs and students. Issues: programs integration and management, student registration and tracking, etc. On-line anytime
Learning Management tools, cross-program communication
Program level Learning Space Course and email Personal and program news and file sharing
Program-level coordination: The management and coordination of multiple courses and students taking those courses. Issues: integrated planning, scheduling and resource allocation, student and faculty bios, program discussions, etc. On-line anytime Course-level: The resources and tools to teach/take a particular course. Issues: course design, assignments, discussions, grading, etc. On-line anytime and live*
Course level LearningSpace Course and email Assignments, lectures, discussions Student-Team level TeamRoom, ICQ, phone, email, etc.
Student-Team level: Tools necessary for student teams geographically spread out to meet, work on assignments and collaboratively learn together. On-line anytime and live*
* On-line live applications such as instant messaging (ICQ) and audio/video conferencing (NetMeeting) provided this functionality in addition to conference calls.
The differences between Learning Management Systems (LMS) and Learning Content Management Systems (LCS), discussed earlier, are highlighted using the level model in Figure 7. A LCS usually focuses on course and student-team levels, while LMS tend to provide support for all levels. Most LMS/LCS do not provide online live support or good learning team support tools. However, the trend is to provide these capabilities by allowing seamless links from LMS/LCS to other tools. In our situation, we use LearningSpace as our core LCS. We created some limited ways to support program and organizational levels as discussed above. However, we could have used much better support at these levels. In addition, as we outlined above we had to add a number of technology tools to support live collaboration and teamwork. LearningSpace 3.0 did have an online live module but it did not perform well enough to meet our needs. It is our understanding that the newer versions of LearningSpace have improved the online live capabilities. We are continually monitoring the evolution of the LMS/LCS market to plan our e-Learning strategic direction. It is clear that the trend is for more and more seamless integration of tools using a LMS/LCS as the core online anywhere technology. This integration is being greatly facilitated by the development of standards allowing reusability of content between courses from different vendors and interoperability of technologies. Although not directly related to collaboration technologies, this issue of learning content is very important to a company’s e-Learning strategy. Let’s look at it from the levels perspective, Figure 7, and use the PwC MBA program as an example. You can find digitised learning content everywhere. When we started this program, not a lot of content was available so faculty developed a lot of content on their own and incorporated pieces developed by others. We are still doing this today. However, today there is a lot more electronic content available to plug into a course! The trend is toward the development of learning objects and complete courses that use these objects. The objects
are reusable and easily moved between different technologies and vendors because of standards. For example, we are now looking at buying learning objects and complete courses to use, much like we have done with textbooks for ages. There are now companies that sell core MBA courses. Clearly, at the organizational and program levels we need not only consider the development and management of e-Learning and digital collaboration tools and infrastructures, we need to develop strategies for acquiring, developing and managing learning content. In 2001, many people are struggling with this content issue including most universities.
Program Success
By the end of the first year, though there had been plenty of bumps and challenges, students reported very high satisfaction and professors could objectively see that successful learning had taken place. Some representative student comments from the 1st year of the program, captured from weekly student feedback, are shown in Figure 8. Blended delivery, enabled by e-Learning technology, made this possible.
The success of the overall program lies in its fulfillment of the original goals. Terry aimed to deliver quality learning, using a blended approach, and to build an effective e-Learning infrastructure. Based on input from all stakeholders, Terry has accomplished these goals. Two of PwC’s goals were employee retention and development. PwC feels these have been accomplished. Students continue to give high praise to the program. In 2000, PwC renewed the contract for another six years. During the first year, we also had two professors from the UGA College of Education evaluate the program, giving it high marks [Schrum & Benson, 2000a, 2000b]. The latest accolade for the program was it being rated one of the top online graduate programs by U.S News and World Report [Special Report: E-Learning, 10/15/01]. Another measure of success is retention. Distance learning research has documented high dropout rates (numbers have ranged as high as 30-80%) and high
dissatisfaction with distance delivered classes. We discussed the high student satisfaction with the program previously. In terms of retention, two classes have graduated to date. Of the 91 who started the program, 89 graduated. Two dropped out because they did not like the format, especially the distance component. Two others had to drop out toward the end of the first year for personal reasons, but they both resumed the program with the second class and graduated. Three of the graduates have gone on to become partners in PwC.
Key Implementation Guidelines
How do we explain the success of the Terry-PwC MBA program? This last section will summarize learnings from the case discussed as a series of guidelines for those wishing to implement e-Learning programs. The guidelines or principles are supported by brief summaries of the case material. Although these guidelines are derived from an academic setting, they are applicable to both organizational and academic environments. Many of the change guidelines are supported in the academic and practitioner literatures. For example, see Kotter [1995] and Johnson and Blanchard (1998) for good practitioner references and Cummings & Worley (2000) and Bostrom (1983) for good academic references.
There must be a felt need or urgency for change
The research literature concludes that for successful organizational change to take place a felt need or urgency for change must be clearly established. This means that the need must exist and key stakeholders must be aware of it. The felt need may be existing problems that need to be solved or opportunities that are worth pursuing. In this case, both Terry and PwC had a number of goals, reflecting critical opportunities, which created a strongly felt need for both parties.
Involve the right people and make sure you have a coalition/leadership powerful enough to make change effort happen
The change literature talks about involving the right people in the change effort and that some of these people need to be powerful enough to make the change happen. The latter group is often referred to as change champions or a guiding coalition. The Terry project leader and the PwC project coordinator were the first guiding coalition. The Terry project leader was a MIS faculty member who was going to teach in the program, chair of the MBA program committee at the start of the program, someone who had foundational knowledge in e-Learning and collaboration technologies, and someone who did a lot of consulting as well. He certainly had the right attributes to lead this project. The PwC coordinator was an ex-academic with a PhD, and thus, understood the academic world well. He was also in a powerful enough position in PwC to make things happen. The skills of these two project leaders and their ability to work together and to mobilize resources in both of their institutions were critical to the development and success of the program. Once the core group of faculty was selected, the guiding coalition changed to include this faculty group. Clearly selecting the best teaching faculty and getting them to work as a team was critical to successful implementation. The project leadership and the program faculty continue to be the guiding coalition behind the Terry-PwC MBA
program. In addition, the hiring of excellent support staff, especially technical support, was and is a key to the success of the program. Building a strong, joint integrative leadership structure to develop and manage such a program is critical. The ongoing management is particularly key. The Terry project leader returned to fulltime faculty status after the first year. The MBA director, who was managing the administrative aspects of the program, picked up his role of managing technical infrastructure and program content. This move created problems because the MBA director did not have the time to manage all aspects of the PwC MBA program and the regular MBA programs as well. Problems included such things as faculty working less as a team, technology improvements being slow or non-existent, and the relationship with PwC staff starting to weaken. To remedy this situation, the leadership of the PwC MBA was taken over by an Associate Dean and the Distributed Learning Support Group was moved under the newly created Chief Information Officer for the Terry College.
Develop mission/vision and communicate it
Implementation of this program hinged on successful development and communication of the vision behind it. Many of the professors, staff and students had no idea what to expect from the start. It would have been very easy for them to participate in a program taught through traditional classroom interactions, since they already knew what that entailed. Making them see that a blended delivery method would also work and work better for this context required their deep support. Such a situation requires development of a clear vision and communicating it through all means possible to garner that support and avoid failure. As outlined earlier, we created both program and technology visions (see Figures 3 and 4) and communicated them continually to relevant stakeholders.
People behave in line with the way they are rewarded, thus, reward them for the behavior you want.
Both change and psychology literatures point out that people behave in line with the way they are rewarded. Thus, in the Terry-PwC program we wanted to make sure we rewarded people for their commitment and performance. The faculty was the key group we focused on. The faculty who teach in the program received summer compensation, first to learn the new technology and develop their course and then to teach in the program. Their Terry-PwC course was also given bonus credits in their regular teaching load, e.g., a 2-credit course counted as 3. All faculty in the program received a laptop along with appropriate teaching resources they need to teach in the program. The recognition they received because they had been “chosen” as the best to teach in the program is also an indirect compensation. The students who participate in the program are rewarded by first having the MBA paid for by PwC while still not forgoing any salary compensation. PwC structures this payment in the form of a student loan that is paid back over the three years following the program. This structure encourages students to stay employed by PwC for five years, two during the program and three years after. Indirect compensation was much the same as for the faculty: by being chosen by the company to participate in the program they are being recognized as one of the top consultants. However, probably the best student
reward is the MBA degree. Most students indicated that they would not have been able to get the degree without this type of program.
Consider blended approach when implementing e-Learning
The change literature would argue that a good intervention is critical to a successful change effort. Our research and experience indicate that a good e-Learning intervention needs to focus on blending approaches and technology. Almost every aspect of the program blends different approaches. The blend between distance and face-to-face education and the blending of technologies are critical keystones of the program. In supporting this blended approach, the faculty use a variety of tools to distribute the class materials while students are at a distance. LearningSpace is good for presenting text material or for holding other files. Some of the faculty create media presentations and put these into LearningSpace to take the place of face-to-face lectures. These approaches are very network intensive because all materials are delivered over a network. Large files that are to be used within a class would be distributed on a CD prior to the start of a course to minimize the network use and the space taken up on all the students’ computers. This meant that the distribution of material had to be balanced between methods: Network and CD. Currently, the Terry College is also working on online live tools for the future. The advantages and disadvantages of all the delivery methods will continue to be assessed and “remixed” to provide the most effective blended course and program delivery. However, the students do the most important blending. While the students are off campus, they have to balance their work life, personal life and student life. For these consultants, they are always worried about the balance between work and personal life, but with the addition of student life, they are typically one step from the breaking point. We address this by imposing rules for hours devoted to work and study. We also address this during the on-campus visits by encouraging social activities, making sure the students know they are not alone. Team building is part of this approach to combat the fatigue. While the teams are important for the learning, they are also critical for the student’s emotional support. While the students are at a distance, they relied on the team to make it to the next on-campus visit. During the visit, team building/rebuilding is a key. Thus, to be effective this meant that we have one more thing to balance. We have to balance team building, social events and instruction. Clearly, for this student balance to be successful, both Terry and PwC personnel have to work together to enforce rules and provide support.
Develop learning communities
Another key factor of the program intervention was the creation of learning communities. The core community is the small student virtual learning teams (4-5 persons) through which much of the initial course-related discussion and work is done. Besides task support, these teams provide strong emotional support. As one student put it “I can’t imagine doing this program without the emotional and spiritual support of my team.” We also continually do activities that develop and reinforce the class as a learning community. Students develop a network of relationships that carries over into their professional work. Students often contact each other for support on PwC consulting projects. This networking among students was one of PwC’s goals for the program.
The initial group of faculty plus key support staff also operated as a team or learning community. The key faculty and staff group, which had formed through the summer trainings prior to the first semester, helped each other through this transition process, sharing learnings and solving problems together as they emerged. Although we have not been able to maintain this community as well as we would like, the initial community of faculty and staff was critical to the successful launch of the program. We feel the key reason for lack of sustainability was the lack of leadership in this area. This issue was discussed in guiding coalition guideline. We also view all people involved in the program as a team or community. Working together as a team, the students, faculty, and Terry and PwC program staff have made enormous progress in establishing effective ways of teaching and learning in a blended e-Learning environment.
Training and support are critical for success
The change literature clearly documents that you should focus on unfreezing (getting the system ready for change) and refreezing (stabilizing and supporting the system after the change has been implemented), and not focus on the change itself. Two of the keys to unfreezing and refreezing are training and support. The initial core faculty cited initial and on-going support and technical and pedagogical training as a major factor in their success as program instructors. The faculty needed to learn the technology and how to put their course into this new paradigm. The initial faculty devoted an entire first summer to learning the technology and developing their courses. As additional faculty were brought into the program, they were trained also. Unfortunately, later groups of faculty have not been trained as well as the first group and this has caused problems. A support structure was put together for faculty to first learn the basic technology and later was available for specific design and development questions. Once the program started, this same support structure would train the students to use the technology and provide technology support to students and faculty during the MBA program. Student Teams are also trained in how to use the technology effectively for supporting distributed teamwork in the Team class. This approach was extremely successful. Due to changes in personnel in 2001, the support is not as good as it has been in the past. You can see the negative effects of this even though we have a well-established program and solid technical infrastructure. Because training and support needs were met, faculty were able to direct their energy to providing effective learning experiences for students, and students could focus on learning, not technology or other types of problems. The bottom-line is simply that training and support are critical for success especially where you are implementing new innovative technologies such as e-Learning or digital collaboration.
Use evolutionary approach focusing on ongoing improvement
One of the principles of change you find cited in the literature is that when there is high uncertainty in an area, you need to use an evolutionary, prototyping or continuous improvement design approach. Although we felt comfortable with the customized program content, we knew fine tuning would be needed in courses to better meet the needs of PwC. However, from a course delivery perspective, e-Learning was a big
unknown to us especially our blended approach. Thus, our vision from the very beginning was to set in-place mechanisms to allow us to continuously improve. This program produced a new reality for the students and faculty involved. Implementing this program required constant flexibility. Two keys made this work: 1) integrated electronic evaluation and feedback, and 2) responsiveness by everyone involved, especially the faculty. Students in the program cited the responsiveness of the faculty and administration to student and PwC concerns as a key factor for success. Each course had an electronic feedback tool built into its structure and program related surveys were done once a week. Students commented on the problems they were facing and sent suggestions for improvements in the technology and course designs. These problems and suggestions were then grouped and sent to the appropriate place. On the individual level, faculty members received feedback on their courses. This varied from broad curricular ideas and content questions to ways to improve details of their course interfaces in LearningSpace based on what other teachers had done. This led to group sharing. Faculty members might then bring up the curriculum and technology questions/issues in regular meetings where effective solutions could be developed and implementation plans created. We view Terry-PwC MBA program as an ongoing or continuous change process. An ongoing change process requires dedicated support over time to adapt both the organization and the technology to changing conditions and technological capabilities. Opportunity-based change, changes that are not anticipated ahead of time but are implemented in response to unexpected opportunity, depends on the ability of the organization to recognize opportunities, issues, and unexpected problems when they arise [Orlikowski and Hofman, 1997]. Establishing a guiding coalition/leadership and providing training and support (guidelines discussed earlier) created the foundation for continuous improvement through both anticipated and opportunity-based changes. .
View target of change from holistic system perspective
The change literature presents many failures that were due to change agents not taking a holistic perspective of the change target. To change an organization, a change agent must have some picture or target of change. In the Terry-PwC MBA implementation, a SocioTechnical Systems (STS) view was taken. STS views the target as a set of interrelated parts: processes, technology, people and structure (Bostrom, 1983). Technology was viewed as an enabler. The focus was on how we could use technology to facilitate the learning process, the interactions between students and students and faculty, and to use it to support team and community structures that were being created. Effective integration of processes, technology, people and structure was the outcome.
Conclusion
We started writing this chapter just before the September 11, 2001 bombings of the World Trade Centers in New York City. This event and others along with the rapid changes in the economy in many countries during this time have created a very different reality in a very short period of time. Reduced budgets and the inability or unwillingness of people to travel has caused many organizations to start looking at e-Learning and digital collaboration as core mechanisms for supporting and doing business. We see this trend continuing.
At the same time, organizations continue to realize the importance of the intellectual capital of their employees. For example, many organizations in the Fall of 2001, that are implementing large layoffs and staff reductions, are faced with the sad reality that much of the intellectual capital of the leaving employees have never been captured, and thus, is lost. The situation reminds us of the quote by Jack Welch that we used in the beginning of this chapter. He argues that organizations win by rising the intellectual capital of the organization every day and that when people are inspired to learn, the energy and excitement generated from the learning is how you energize an organization. PwC and the Terry College through their joint creation of a blended e-Learning based MBA program have raised the intellectual capital in both organizations. The program has also energized both organizations. For example, the learnings and the infrastructure created have helped Terry launch two additional new MBA programs. Our efforts have made enormous impact in establishing and understanding effective ways of teaching and learning in a blended e-Learning environment. This chapter has provided a vehicle for sharing our learning to energize a larger audience.
References
Bostrom, Robert P. (1983). "Designing an Information System: The Socio-Technical Approach," Cause/Effect, 6(2): 22-26. Cummings, Thomas G., & Worley, Christopher, G. (2001). Essentials of Organization development and change. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western College Pub Johnson, David W., Johnson, Roger T., & Smith, Karl A. (1998). “Cooperative Learning Returns to College”, Change, July/August: 27-35 Johnson, Dirk (2001). “Special Report: Learning -- Next Frontiers,” Newsweek, October 29, 2001 Johnson, Spencer and Blanchard, Ken (1998). Who Moved My Cheese? An Amazing Way to Deal with Change in Your Work and in Your Life. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Kotter, J. P. (1995). “Leading Change: Why Transformational Efforts Fail.” Harvard Business Review, 73(2): 59-65. Moore, Cathleen and Mark Jones (2001). “Comdex: E-learning touted as next killer app”, Computerworld, November 15, 2001, http://www.computerworld.com Orlikowski, Wanda J. and Debra Hofman (1997). “An improvisational model for change management: The Case of groupware technologies”. Sloan Management Review, 38(2): 11-21
Schrum, L., & Benson, A. (2000a). “A case study of one online MBA program: Lessons from the first iteration of an innovative educational experience.” The Business, Education and Technology Journal, 2(2): 38-46. Schrum, L., & Benson, A. (2000b). “Online professional education: A case study of an MBA program through its transition to an online model.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Environments [On-line serial], 4(1). Available: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/jaln-vol4issue1.htm “Special Report: E-Learning,” U.S. News and World Report, October 15, 2001
doc_417144931.pdf