Balancing Your Portfolio
In understanding how to plan for, and manage expectations of, a broad portfolio of projects using information and learning technologies it may be helpful to consider where each particular programme and/or project sits on the spectrum of innovative activities. This has implications for your likely ROI and on the level of risk involved. This type of analysis can be used in conjunction with other analytical tools such as the Boston Matrix.
A JISC project in 2007 using the CAMEL model undertook a series of 37 case studies attempting to define the tangible benefits of activities that could broadly be described as e-learning. In trying to make sense of a vast diversity of activity we found it helpful to plot the case studies on a graph similar to that shown below:
X Axis - Nature of issue
The x axis of the graph shows the type of problem the institution is trying to solve, the rationale for doing so and the metrics that can be used to measure success. What we find here is that a well-defined problem such as how to assess large cohorts of students within a tight time-frame can be measured against a very specific and readily quantifiable set of metrics and that it is relatively easy to put accurate figures on time and cost savings. The rationale for undertaking this kind of change is entirely rational and to some extent self-evident.
Towards the middle of the scale we find activities where the intended benefit is to improve learners' understanding of a particular subject - in other words a pedagogically driven change where the tangible benefits can be measured in terms of course or module pass rates or other direct measures of achievement. At the far end of the scale we encounter approaches intended to address far 'softer' and more complex issues of student engagement. The rationale behind such activities is often no more than the vocational commitment of the academic concerned in the first instance and evidence of success may be entirely anecdotal for some time.
Y Axis - e-Approach
The y axis shows how the 'e-approaches' differ in nature from those that seek to automate existing practices through those that add increased value by the application of information to those that ultimately seek to transform the learning process.
The term 'informate' is taken from Zuboff (1988) who describes the change from the early days of 'computerisation' aimed at process-automation to the late 80s where the provision and analysis of the information, made available from earlier computerisation, begins to have a transformative effect on the management, strategy and structure of organisations. Schein (1989) makes the further distinction between 'informating down' whereby control type information is passed downwards and 'informating up' whereby those closest to the issues pass information up the chain (in our case upwards from the student to the lecturer).
It can thus be seen that the approaches clustered in the bottom left quadrant are those that represent the clearest ROI and it is easily possible to assess their scalability and the value for money represented by further investment. e-Assessment tends to fall into this category. Those in the top right quadrant however are more research and development (R&D) in nature and in their present form may represent overheads without any immediately obvious return. Work on gaming technologies and immersive environments tends to fall here. This is the kind of risk taking that is necessary to keep the sector moving forward and we can anticipate that these activities will move down towards the bottom left as they become more established. Both individual institutions and the sector as a whole needs a balance of activities in all of these quadrants if we are to see real progress. For example we may already be able to assess students quickly and cheaply using technology (e-assessment tending towards the bottom left quadrant) but if we assess them and find they are failing, we need projects further up the R&D scale in order to address that.
Such an approach can be useful from a management angle in helping to ensure that you do have a balanced portfolio of projects across the organisation. You may want to distinguish between activities that perform utility functions as opposed to those that enhance or transform your business. The same may apply further down the organisational hierarchy as an individual School or Faculty might consider having one or two 'automate/informate down' projects that can be used to free-up resources for one or two transformational projects. Projects in the middle area will, if successful, provide some resource savings whilst simultaneously improving pedagogy. A balanced portfolio will also provide a wider range of examples for other staff to draw on in developing their own practice.
Once we get down to the level of individual programmes and projects it may pay to think about them in these terms in order to tailor your approach accordingly to manage stakeholder expectations. It follows almost without saying that projects in the top left quadrant are inherently 'riskier' and require a greater degree of cultural change. They will also require a more flexible approach to planning and a greater number of iterative review stages. If you are able to be explicit about why you are taking these risks and how you see the projects contributing to organisational capacity building and growth this will go some way to overcoming potential resistance.
