Analyzing Scope Creep

With little professional experience in project management, the project being utilized for this blog post is of a personal nature. The project involved the re-siding of a house. For their 50th wedding anniversary, my brother, two sisters, and I decided we would gather our resources, manage our time, and re-side our parents’ house. Having all grown up in this house, we began developing our construction skills at a young age, as our father was the sort to do things himself, rather than having a job be hired out. As such, in time, we became rather skilled laborers! We didn’t know life without there being some wall torn down, or another being built. The pre-siding state of the house included approximately 1/3 not having siding on at all! The other 2/3 had siding, but it was many (key word) years old and clearly in need of a paint job. With myself and two sisters living in other states, the project certainly required planning.

In that our brother was a very skilled contractor (licensed professional) who had experience in the construction of homes, from foundations, to framing, to roofing, and much more, he was the PM. Although Stolovitch (2011) indicates the most difficult aspect of PM in managing the variety of personalities, this was not an issue. We all knew, going into the project, the personalities involved. They did not become an issue impacting the progress of the project. The clients (mom and dad) were well informed throughout the process. Their input was received, and assurances relating to the quality of the project were continuously communicated.

Financial costs for the project were also not an issue. The labor was free, in terms of actual monetary compensation, and the materials for the project were set. Any equipment and tools needed were available through the resources of my brother and father. Siding materials and painting were also set costs. When everything appeared to be arranged and in place …. enter, scope creep!

Primary scope creep issues which arose involved:

* Resource hours – Additional responsibilities came up, which led to the temporary loss of a laborer. These responsibilities were not directly related to this specific project. Rather, the laborer, had other obligations requiring their attention.

* Weather – This caused minor issues. With the sun beating down during certain times of the day, tasks and activities slowed in pace. This affected individuals being exposed to 90+ degree temperatures. It also affected the timeline of the tasks/activities involving painting.

* Expertise required – Our PM overestimated the capabilities of the laborers … in some circumstances.

In regards to myself and the other stakeholders reacting to these issues, an extremely significant factor related to our commitment to the project. We all had a great deal of buy-in early on, and were highly motivated and dedicated to the project’s successful outcome. This aspect originated a year prior to the actual “ground-breaking”. This, combined with the PM having a year to plan the project, allowed for each team member to at least mentally prepare for each issue which may have taken place during implementation. One of the most significant risk factors concerned the primary stakeholders (mom and dad, emphasis – dad) expanding their role from client to PM. One needs to fully understand the personality and characteristics of the emphasized stakeholder to completely appreciate the great risk involved! This risk was a risk worthy of the category of project-level issues, as defined by Lynch and Roecker (2007). During each phase of conceptualizing, defining, starting, and executing this project, communications regarding risk, in particular this risk, was clear and consistent. This aligns with Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, and Kramer (2008) identifying the importance of communicating risks throughout a project.

My first suggestion to improve upon the management of these risks and potential scope creep involve delegation. Delegating lower priority tasks, which is an important aspect of monitoring projects (Stolovitch, 2011) could have occurred to a greater extent. The PM felt as though he was responsible for more than he actually needed to be. When trouble arises, a PM should draw from their team members as much as possible (Stolovitch, 2011). With team members possessing a reasonable degree of skill, a brief explanation of what to do in a circumstance would have enabled the PM to move on to more important issues, while the team members accomplished the new task arising as a result of scope creep. If this occurring a bit more frequently, when an issue arose, the PM could have been more effective in keeping the project moving forward. Following the outlines identifying roles, responsibilities, specific deliverables, and effort/duration estimates, are important guidelines in moving projects forward Greer (2010). With a little guidance, the PM could direct the laborers to successfully complete some tasks, while minimally impacting the overall project timeline. Also, the PM, in this circumstance would be free to continue addressing his particular tasks, which none of the other team members could perform.

I must say, it has been very enlightening to view this “project” in such a structured, organized manner. If I might add .. the PM (yes, my brother) really did a great job in all phases of this project … except he expects too much of himself … a genetic flaw!!! The final outcome was extremely close to full completion. When team members had to leave town, very minor tasks needed to be completed.

Resources

Greer, M. (2010). The project management minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your projects! (Laureate custom ed.). Baltimore: Laureate Education, Inc.

Lynch, M. M., & Roecker, J. (2007). Project managing e-learning: A handbook for successful design, delivery, and management. London: Routledge. Copyright by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. Reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis Group, LLC via the Copyright Clearance Center.

Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Stolovitch, H., (2011). Monitoring projects. Lecture presented for Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from

http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5693702&Survey=1&47=7270808&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

Communicating with Stakeholders

When it comes to project management, keeping stakeholders involved is not important, it is absolutely fundamental (Achong, & Budrovich, 2011). Described in the multimedia program, “The Art of Effective Communication”, are the points of: communicating with members of your project team is one of the main responsibilities; and the way in which the message is delivered has significant implications on how the message will be received. Having been presented the same message in an e-mail, voicemail, and face to face, in the multimedia program “The Art of Effective Communication”, helps demonstrate the variation in how a message can be interpreted, and how the different delivery methods can elicit various emotional responses from the receiver. I received each message in the order they were presented. That is, e-mail, voicemail, and then face to face.
 

In reading the message in an e-mail, although the sender did acknowledge an appreciation at the end of the message, I didn’t care to have the sender refer to my report as “the missing report”. It was clear that the sender wanted the report as soon as possible. However, reading the word “missing”, was difficult to get past. My report was not “missing”, it had simply not yet been delivered to the sender. In that the message was delivered via e-mail, it was impossible for me to read it only once, and each time I did read it, “missing” jumped off the page even more!
 

Listening to the same message in a voicemail helped calm me down a bit. The sender of the message had a calm, soothing tone, and even though she used the word “missing”, it was not an emphasis. In fact, the message sounded like the sender was actually understanding of my own circumstances and workload. Again, it was clear the sender wanted the report from me as soon as possible, yet it sounded like she did not want to step on my toes and come across in a demanding manner. Rather, her tone indicated to me a kinder, gentler request, more along the lines of “When you can get to it, I’d really appreciate having the report so I can meet my own approaching deadline”.
 

Receiving the message via face to face delivery, it was clear the sender wanted my report now. However, the sender seemed to convey an indifference to my circumstance. It was almost as if she was bothered or being inconvenienced and I was the target. I think it was the tempo of her message and how her voice seemed a little lethargic. I had a little sense that she didn’t think I could or even would get the report to her soon. I particularly didn’t like it when she point her finger when saying “and your report…”. I Interpreted that portion as “and YOUR report …”. It might have been the partition she was standing behind, but I didn’t feel a connection in the sense of “we are working together on this”.

The greatest take away for me in this activity is about how a message is delivered. Communication is not just words, it is about the spirit, attitude, tone, and body language (Stolovitch, 2011). If the sender of the third message, delivered face to face, used the tone and tempo of the sender of the voicemail, I would likely have dropped everything and completed the report, even though it wasn’t due for another couple of days. It is not unusual for any of us to have an off-day, in general. If this off-day is a day when we are to be responsible for carrying out effective communications regarding a project, an extra level of awareness in how to communication would greatly benefit the outcome or result of the communication. I can’t merely say and/or write words and assume the message is correctly understood and interpreted. Regardless of whether or not I get along with the other members of our project team, I must be able to effectively carry out my duties along with the other members. With members of an instructional project team likely coming from a variety of background, disciplines, and levels of expertise, communication is critical (Lin, 2006). Mis-communicating and/or ineffectively communicating could become a seed, at a project’s beginning, that might grow and spread weeds throughout the course of the project! Once the clover, dandelions, and Bermuda grass begin to grow, it becomes rather difficult to remove!

Resources

Achong, T., & Budrovich, V. (2011). Practitioner voices: Strategies for working with stakeholders. Lecture presented for Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5693702&Survey=1&47=7270808&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

Lin, H. (2006). Instructional project management: An emerging professional practice for design and training programs. Workforce Education Forum, 33(2).

Stolovitch, H., (2011). Communicating with stakeholders. Lecture presented for Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5693702&Survey=1&47=7270808&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

The Art of Effective Communication. (2011). Multimedia program presented for Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/EDUC/6145/03/mm/aoc/index.html.

Project “Post Mortem”

The project in question for this post is one of updating and modifying an existing degree program at a community college. I have been an intercollegiate basketball coach for many years. In this capacity, I had limited experience in curriculum development, and virtually no experience in project management (PM). Having been selected as our department representative to the college’s curriculum committee, I faced a steep learning curve. When our department agreed to proceed with making significant modifications to our particular degree, by default, I become a PM. At the time, I did not view the task through this perspective. Not only were there specific policies, procedures and criteria for curriculum development establish by our local college, the state has their own set of policies, procedures and guidelines with which to evaluate and ultimately approve or deny the proposed degree/curriculum modifications. Now, I really had my hands full!

Through the benefit of hindsight, and the past two weeks of beginning to learn about PM, I now have a clearer picture of where the overall project would have been more successful through the use of the PM concepts and models. While these PM tools were certainly not formally implemented, I can see where some aspects of the five life phases of a project, as identified by Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, and Kramer (2008), did contribute to the successful elements of the project. The five phases being: conceive; define; start; perform; and close.

The conception phase was well thought out, with the input of all department members and our department associate dean. The answer to both questions of, “Can and should the project be done” was yes. As such we were in a situation to proceed (Portny, et al., 2008). We had the necessary resources and the anticipated benefits were definitely worth the costs involved.

The next two phases of defining and developing the plan, and starting with forming a team were addressed in a very informal manner. This is where utilizing the PM process could have significantly benefitted this project. In particular, this project needed to have a clear and in-depth responsibility matrix developed. The roles and responsibilities of all team members should have been communicated (Portny et al., 2008). Greer (2010) additionally offers a clear responsibility/accountability matrix that identifies exactly who will be doing what in the project. In that this phase had little structure, there was a momentum leading into the start phase which continued to cause a detrimental impact. Responsibilities were not clearly defined or communicated.

With a huge variable in this projecting being the process and set of criteria required for curriculum development, at both our college as well as the state, assumptions made on my part as a PM existed, yet were not clearly formulated nor communicated. The project was unsuccessful in that it arrived at a road block when it reached the state level for authorization and approval. As the PM, if I were to have developed a statement of work (SOW), the research required for a comprehensive SOW would have identified some of these variables (assumptions, constraints, and risks) needing to be addressed, thereby circumventing the road blocks that ultimately arose when the project was sent to the state. These points coincide with the early “nuts and bolts” steps of project success outlined by Greer (2010). Loose nuts and bolts, result in unstable construction!

The aspects of the project coinciding with Portny et al’s. (2008) performance phase of projects was actually quite solid, in the early going. When any problem did arise, it was addressed with minimal effort and the project was able to proceed. It wasn’t until the end of the project came closer that the challenges which arose, pushed the project to a very slow crawl. Presently, it remains an open project, pending the acceptance and final approval of the most recent revisions.

In summary, I believe the project did not achieve the anticipated level of success for two primary reasons. The first being a lack of overall specific structure for the project. PM concepts and models would have provided a solutions. In offering an analogy, the foundation of the building we wished to build was not up to code! The second reason relates to not having identified the true scope of the project. Were this to have happened, the development of the project would have included the necessary elements needing to be addressed, specifically the depth of the project, with which the state would have accepted and approved the modifications of our degree program.

Lessons learned! (Why didn’t I take this course two years ago? Better late than never!)

References

Greer, M. (2010). The project management minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your projects! (Laureate custom ed.). Baltimore: Laureate Education, Inc.

Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Project Management

Welcome to the continuation of this blog. As a student at Walden University, pursuing a degree in instructional design and technology, over the next eight weeks, I will be making future blog posts regarding the field of project management in education and training. Any and all comments will be greeted with an appreciation for other perspectives and contributions towards education in general, as well as my academic pursuits and continued learning.

The Future of Distance Learning

One thing I strongly believe, in regards to distance learning (DL), is that it is here to stay! Most people would likely be surprised to learn DL was present as far back as 1833 where composition, language and civil service courses were offered via mail correspondence (Distance Learning Timeline). In fast forwarding to today, and anticipating what the future holds for DL, I would like to first recognize three different forms of DL being online courses, blended or hybrid courses, and Web-facilitated courses. A primary distinction between the three forms is that at least 80% of the content is delivered online, 30%-79% of the content is delivered online, and less than 29% of the content is delivered online, respectively (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, and Zvacek, 2009). With learning management systems (LMS) becoming mainstream in the late 1900’s and the appearance of Web 2.0 technologies such as wikis, blogs, podcasts, and multi-user virtual environments, standards and the regulation of DL environments arose (Distance Learning Timeline). With the quality of DL continuing to advance, and faculty and administration viewing DL more positively (Simonson et al., 2009), I can only conclude future perceptions of DL will also continue to be more positive.

With factors such as economics and access being key in the significant growth of DL at the post-secondary level (Moller, Foshay, and Huett, 2008), and the changing learning styles of students at this level, as a result of technology (Dede, 2005), and the academic fidelity of online programs adhering to the quality and standards of face-to-face (F2F) programs being a leading indicator of a DL program’s integrity and quality (Gambescia and Paolucci, 2009), I can see nothing but positive perceptions of DL to increase, as the quality and understanding of DL grows. Additionally, with more people personally experiencing the use of technology tools that are also used in DL, in particular those involving communications, the distance aspect of DL will become less of a factor (Siemens). I see the growing familiarity and capabilities of individuals to provide increased levels of expertise from instructors and by learners who will be participating in DL environments.

As a future instructional designer (ID), the most important thing I need to do, in order to help in the advancement of perceptions of DL, is design instruction in a systematic and structured way for the primary purpose of ultimately designing a program of high quality and ultimate effectiveness. By using a design procedure such as the ADDIE process, and planning for the variables for each particular and specific learning environment, such as:  the facilitator, the learners, the technologies, and the content, I will be able to address the important aspects of building a successful online course (Piskurich and Chauser). There are many problems with merely taking materials utilized in a F2F learning environment and placing them online (Moller, 2008). The DL environment is one that shifts towards a visual presentation of materials and one in which learner interactivity and engagement must occur (Simonson et al., 2009). The presentation and delivery of content and materials must be such that the facilitator, in that given circumstance, possesses the necessary knowledge and ability to effectively implement the course. Equally important is the learner’s knowledge of and access to the technologies utilized in the DL environment (Simonson et al., 2009).

While it is difficult for me to envision what the actual DL environment 10-20 years from now may be, as I find the future of technology difficult to see in terms of the capabilities therein, I do see DL being an acceptable form of quality learning. As with most products and services, the continued increase in quality design of DL environments, elevated levels of expertise on the part of instructors implementing DL, and learners growing in their understanding of how to effectively function in a DL environment and the responsibilities they have as a distance learner, are the reasons DL will continue to grow in offerings and more importantly, acceptance as a quality learning experience. If the DL product and service is not of quality, it will fall by the wayside. The fact that a course or program is offered in a F2F environment does not alone ensure the integrity and quality of the course or program. I believe my personal positive impact on distance education will ultimately result from having gained the knowledge of quality ID, becoming an instructor or facilitator of DL, and personally experiencing DL as a learner. My views and understanding will encompass a broad view of DL, in both its challenges and benefits. I look forward to my continued advocacy, yet on a much greater scale, of education at a distance!

  

References

Dede, C. (2005). Planning for Neomillennial Learning Styles. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 28(1), 7-12. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Distance Learning Timeline Continuum. Lecture presented for Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from  http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5364557&Survey=1&47=7270808&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

Gambescia, S., & Paolucci, R. (2009). Academic Fidelity and Integrity as Attributes of University Online Degree Program Offerings. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 12(1). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring121/gambescia121.html.

Moller, L., Foshay, W. R., & Huett, J. (2008). The Evolution of Distance Education: Implications for Instructional Design on the Potential of the Web. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52(4), 66-70.

Piskurich, G. & Chauser, J. Planning and Designing Online Courses. Lecture presented for Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5364557&Survey=1&47=7270808&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

Siemens, G., The Future of Distance Education. Lecture presented for Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5364557&Survey=1&47=7270808&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Converting to DL

Resulting from the frustration with their organization’s current face-to-face training program, in particular the quality, or lack thereof, with trainee communications, the training manager approached the supervisor with the intent of converting the current program materials to a distance learning blended training environment. Clicking on the "Converting to DL - Guide" link below will take you to the pdf document serving as a guide for the training manager to successfully convert to a new blended DL environment. Various aspects and items needing to be addressed during the conversion process are included in the guide. Included in the guide are DL aspects relating to the: organization; facilitator; learners; online environment; technology tools; and course content. Utilizing this guide will help ensure the training manager’s successful conversion of their training program.

Converting to DL - Guide

Open Course Learning

As our thirst for education and learning continues to grow, along with the advances in technological tools and capabilities, and greater access to this technology, so too are expanding the methods and means with which to provide education and learning opportunities. Open source learning (OSL) is one of these growing methods of providing instruction. This post will consider the aspects of OSL, and its effectiveness in providing content and maximizing the learning opportunity for students. In particular, the OSL environment provided by Yale University will be the focus. It can be accessed at:  http://oyc.yale.edu/.

Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, and Zvacek (2009) outline critical components in the designing process as being the: learners, content, method, materials, environment, and technology. They continue by stating, for successful learning to take place, the importance of these components interacting with one another in a balanced manner with no one component being of greater significance or value. With this being the case, Yale’s OSL falls a little short in that it exists as a one-way learning environment, in terms of interaction and/or communication between learners and the instructor. However, on Yale’s OSL website, it clearly states the University acknowledges the best education is that which is built upon direct interactions among teachers, students, and staff (http://oyc.yale.edu/about#q2). Yale also indicates a goal of their OSL environment to be in making an important contribution in expanding access to educational resources via Internet technologies (http://oyc.yale.edu/about#q2). Most certainly is this goal accomplished! With adult learners possessing the traits, among others, of being more self-directed, and self-disciplined, with their own learning goals in mind (Simonson, et al., 2009), I would strongly suspect the adult learners accessing Yale OSL courses would be well aware of and prepared for the learning environment’s lower levels of interactivity.

Overall, I am quite impressed with Yale’s OSL course offerings. The offerings are designed in a very organized manner, creating an intuitive, easy to navigate environment, which is an important aspect for the learner (Simonson et al., 2009). Yale’s OSL course offerings also provide a range of resources to allow for learners accessing with various capabilities that consist of high and low level technologies. This too is an important component of effective distance learning (Simonson et al., 2009). Content is provided in formats including text-based transcripts for lectures, audio files, video files, and PowerPoint files. Additionally, the audio and video media are offered in formats to accommodate both low and high bandwidth connections. The high bandwidth capable video files included closed captioning for learners. While listening to a lecture from one professor, I found the closed captioning to be quite helpful in that the professor had a rather thick accent. Including closed caption with the video allowed this learner to understand all of the professor’s lecture. A range of learning styles has been accommodated for, to a degree, in this OSL environment. Content can be accessed from the website in addition to the option of downloading audio, video, or text files for access off-line and/or at a later time.

Although two-way communication in this OSL learning environment is not apparent, what does exist includes: information to assist learners in the event of technical difficulties; answers to frequently asked questions regarding Yale’s open courses; and the opportunity to offer feedback, through a survey, on any particular OSL course and/or Yale’s OSL environment in general. Feedback and clear instructions are yet other components of a successful distance learning environment (Simonson et al., 2009). One other item to consider as a less-than-ideal component for distance learning is the course syllabi offered for the various courses. A very complete syllabus, addressing learning objectives is a key for this learning environment (Piskurich and Chauser). In looking through several syllabi, I was unable to identify specific objectives for any course. The contents of each syllabus appeared to be general in nature.

In summary, I believe Yale’s OSL environment is exceptional! Despite the few items mentioned earlier, which with adjustments could enhance the learning, Yale’s site offers quality content and learning. As an adult learner, which likely are most of those who access this site, it is important to take upon one’s own shoulders, greater responsibility for one’s own educational learning opportunities (Simonson et al., 2009). As an adult learner myself, I am quite pleased to have had the opportunity to be introduced to this resource.

References

Piskurich, G. & Chauser, J. Planning and Designing Online Courses. Lecture presented for Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5364557&Survey=1&47=7270808&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.