Reducing e-learning development time
The following is a summary of some key points raised in a recent article written by Robyn A. Defelice and Karl M. Kapp on the Learning Circuits website, exploring how to reduce the number of person-days it takes to develop e-learning. Fortunately, it highlights some of the approaches we use at Epic! For a full version, please go to the article, 'Reducing the Time to Develop One Hour of Instruction'.
1. Providing better client orientation to e-learning development processes
The article suggests that scope creep (the uncontrolled change in the size of a project) was primarily due to client changes that were ‘unexpected,’ ‘last minute,’ or ‘after sign-off’.
The second largest factor was due to SMEs or content reviewers (in particular the lack of availability or access to the reviewer), overdue reviews, and the sudden addition of more reviewers commenting after a portion of the project was approved. When late reviewers are allowed to make changes to approved material, project time tends to increase.
Reduction recommendation: Not surprisingly the authors suggest developers should reassess how projects are onboarded with clients, old and new, and commit to a policy that all projects move forward only after a briefing with the client and the relevant client personnel. Developers as part of their service should provide a presentation, a tutorial, or even a brochure explaining “what we do and how clients fit into the process”, along with a description of the stakeholder, SME/reviewer, and client sponsor roles and responsibilities. This documentation should be signed by the client and key stakeholders as a sign of understanding and shared responsibility for the success of the project.
2. Building a stronger communication process
Given that the first point stems from a need to educate the client on our process, the article suggests that developers cannot stop at just providing a basic orientation. Developers should also ask themselves “What are we doing to maintain comprehension and a sense of ownership and responsibility by the client for the success of the project throughout its duration?” If the client is overdue on materials or adds a new reviewer after approval, what steps are in place to communicate the impact of these actions and when are those potential risks communicated? Designers and developers cannot just collect information during the initial meetings and come back later with the perfect piece of training.
Reduction recommendation: Content developers must ensure that the communication plan reflects the needs of the project. For example, a new client may require extra email or phone calls to remind them of the next steps or to see how they are handling their responsibilities within the project. A more seasoned client may not need as much day-to-day communication.
In addition, the authors clearly believe that discussing an optimal communication plan with clients gives them more shared responsibility for the project, and makes them feel more “part of the team”, providing a level of comfort for establishing effective communication channels from the start.
3. Recognising the potential for change management
There is no doubt that changes can happen at any time for any reason. Typically they are technological changes, scope of work modifications and timeline adjustments.
Reduction recommendation: Again the authors quite rightly suggest that developers should take the change management leadership position and provide a sense of security for the client in times of transition. This means working with the client to discuss the best methods for ensuring that, as the transition occurs, the project continues to move forward and that all is not doomed!
Closing thoughts on improving e-learning development
Defelice and Kapp clearly believe that using sets of common processes, applicable to any project and easily tailored to the exact needs of a client can control some of the ‘loose cannon’ factors that impact the time it takes to develop one hour of instruction. But they also keep sight of the fact that it still takes considerable time and effort to create good instruction. One cannot expect quality, effective training to be developed rapidly when it has unrealistic deadlines, little client participation and incomplete processes.
