S UPUESTOS GENERALES

Given the background and motivation presented in the previous section, we defined the following overall research question for this study: How should we run concurrent e-learning design projects for corporate clients,

to make effective e-learning deliverables efficiently?

This overall research question have contributed to several challenges that we had to deal with in order to define the CCeD method: (1) to what extent can we draw on existing instructional design methods and what adjustment do we need to do, (2) to what extent can we draw on existing concurrent design experiences and what adjustment do we need to do, (3) how should we organize and define the CCeD process, (4) which roles do we need in a CCeD project, (4) which design-models that together constitute an overall model for the entire e-learning offer should we develop, (5) which software tools could we utilize when these models are developed, (6) how should we organize the facility (the room with needed hardware and software tools where concurrent e-learning design sessions are conducted), (7) how should we facilitate the work and stimulate to an inclusive team environment that contributes to productivity, and (8) how should we define an infrastructure for collaboration and information sharing between all the involved project participants?

In order to answer these questions we have reviewed relevant literature within the fields of e-learning design and concurrent design. Furthermore we have exploited the experiences our project participants have in relation to e-learning. This work started in the late eighties and our institutions have offered Internet-based distance education since 1992, as participants in the JITOL project (Lewis, Goodyear, & Boder, 1992). In addition, we have brought in external expertise (dr. Oxnevad) with regard to concurrent design. Oxnevad has worked with concurrent design at JPL from 1996 to 2005 (Simtano, 2009). Besides the traditional literature search, we have used both audio and video recordings to collect and store data during the project. Our project meetings have been recorded on audio-files and parts of this material are later transcribed into text protocols. Several activities conducted in our concurrent design facility has been video-taped and this includes the four days of concurrent design team and facilitator training Simtano and Oxnevad provided us with, in May 2009. These audio and video recordings were later used as input when various aspects of the CCeD method were described.

“Research methods are tools, and tools should only be selected once goals and tasks are clear.” (Reeves, 2000, p. 8). Our goals and tasks are related to the above-mentioned research question and the establishment of the new CCeD method. On this basis, we have based our research on the method of design science (Hevner et al., 2004). The design science approach is also considered relevant by several other researchers within the field of instructional design. Reeves (2000) describe a development research process based on principles of design science. This iterative research process is further detailed in (Ma & Harmon, 2009), where each step in the process is more thoroughly described. Our approach to the design science research method has been to use the seven design science research guidelines from (Hevner et al., 2004), and the following shows our approach to these principles:

x First, we design as an artifact since we produce a method to solve important organizational challenges related to customized corporate e-learning design. Our main artifact is the CCeD method including process descriptions, templates for several e-learning design sub-models, a facility for the implementation of design sessions, and an infrastructure to support the project.

x Second, the problem relevance is thoroughly recognized both within our own institutions and more broadly as described in several research articles. Development of high quality corporate e-learning is challenging and appropriate stakeholder involvement, which is one of the challenges we treat in this project, is considered a key factor in this context.

x Third, design evaluation is on the agenda and the utility, quality and efficacy of the CCeD method was continuously evaluated during the first development phases, and the method will be further evaluated as it is implemented and tested more thoroughly on real cases.

x Fourth, the research contribution has a great potential and will be significant if we succeed in achieving results like they have documented for concurrent design implementations at space technology institutions (Bandecchi et al., 2000). Our goal is that the CCeD method should contribute to improved quality, reduced costs and reduced time consumption when new e-learning are designed and delivered to corporate clients.

x Fifth, research rigor is ensured by the fact that we base the research on the method of design science, and that we evaluate the CCeD method thoroughly and in several iterations before the final version is distributed to a wider audience.

x Sixth, we design as a search process since we make use of available theories within the two subject areas, e-learning design and concurrent design. Based on this, we compose new solutions that meet our needs and satisfy the guidelines we are bound by. This is an iterative and search-based design process where we investigate a broad base of alternative solutions, which are further reviewed, and adapted to our requirements in terms of utility, efficiency and effectiveness.

x Seventh, communication of research is dealt with and the results will be presented both to academically- oriented as well as management-oriented audiences. Our funding partner (Norway Opening Universities) has a web site where overall information about the project is posted (NOU, 2010), and the CCeD method with associated documentation will be distributed and made freely available from the project's web site (CCeD, 2010). Moreover, we intend to publish several scientific articles that go in depth on different aspects of the application of CCeD. This article, that aims to describe the CCeD on an overall level, is the first contribution in this context.

4. The Concurrent E-Learning Design Method

The purpose of this section is to give an overall description of the current version of the CCeD method, and to mention some of the challenges faced during the method design process. The project has lasted for several months to reach the current status, but nevertheless we expect adjustments ahead, as we now implement the method and use it for the development of real e-learning deliveries for corporate clients. Central method elements that we will describe in this section are: (1) the process that defines how the projects should be run from start to end, (2) the different roles involved in the CCeD sessions, and the tasks they are responsible for, (3) the different sub-models to be developed, which together make up the entire design-model for the e-learning delivery, (4) the tools that the various experts use when their sub-models are developed, and (5) the facility and the infrastructure which should contribute to efficient multidisciplinary collaboration (concurrent design) throughout the project. The following descriptions must necessarily be at a high level and we refer to the project's web site (CCeD, 2010) for more detailed information on these topics.

4.1 The CCeD Process

The CCeD process is documented as a process document containing descriptive text and graphical representations based on the Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) (White, 2004).The current process document contains: (1) an overview of the CCeD method where the process itself is one of the key components, (2) the purpose of the process, (3) an overview of the process that is graphically designed with BPMN, (4) a description of the process which includes a description of the operational roles and functions, decision points, collaborative teams, sub-models to be developed when the process is used, and the sub-processes included in the process, (5) an overview of the infrastructure at the facility where the CCeD sessions are to be conducted, (6) input and entry criteria required to start the process, (7) output and exit criteria describing the deliveries from the process, (8) an overview of all sub-processes where each sub-process is graphically designed with BPMN, in addition to a list of activities, tasks, guidelines, roles, expected output, and available templates and tools, (9) a checklist for the process, (10) an overview of process evaluation activities, (11) appropriate tools that can be used in conjunction with the process, (12) documents and templates related to the process, (13) control and ownership for the process, (14) specific guidelines that will apply in certain situations, and (15) important competences and training guidelines related to the process. We will come back to some of the above mentioned elements of the business process in paragraphs 4.2 to 4.5 in this article, and first we choose to simply describe the three phases of the CCeD process on an overall level.

First, we have the Preparation phase including initial contact between the educational institution and the corporate client. The input to this phase is the project directive document which represents the formal permission to start the project planning. It contains background information for the project, objectives, needed resources, scope for the project planning period and a sign-off from authorized representatives of the educational institution

and the corporate client. The output from this phase is a project plan containing the project’s frame of time, cost and quality, which must be approved before the project can proceed.

Second, we have the Execution phase. This phase is regarded as the core of the CCeD method, since concurrent e-learning design sessions are planned and executed here. The session schedule will vary between different projects, but we have chosen to define a directive schedule, containing a session plan, which includes five sessions with approximately 3.5 hours duration and a minimum of one week intervals between them. In each of these sessions different aspects of the four sub-models (Instructional Model, Knowledge Model, Technical

Delivery Model and Business Model) evolves in parallel. The following list shows the area of focus for each of

the sessions:

x Session I – What is the situation; A situation analysis about the current situation in relation to instructional schemes (Instructional Model), knowledge aspects (Knowledge Model), technological aspect (Technical

Delivery Model), and financial and administrative issues (Business Model).

x Session II – What possibilities exist; A study of possibilities in relation to each of the four sub-models where the purpose is to describe a wide range of possible solutions for the e-learning design.

x Session III – Selection of solutions; An evaluation of the possibilities and selection of solutions for each sub-model, which we choose to bring forward and use in the current upcoming e-learning delivery.

x Session IV – How the solution should be designed; A detailed preparation of the e-learning design where the delivery is organized, e.g. in what order instructional activities will be carried out (Instructional Model), in what order appropriate learning material will be presented (Knowledge Model), how the different technical solutions should be designed (Technical Delivery Model), and how economic models and administrative solutions should be implemented (Business Model).

x Session V - Completion and implementation planning; To complete the design model for the entire e- learning delivery and make plans with respect to the development and delivery, e.g. who should do what, when will it be done and what resources are needed.

The output from the Execution phase is the design document for the entire e-learning delivery. This document is composed of the four above-mentioned sub-models and it is regarded as the main deliverable from a CCeD project.

Third, we have the Conclusion phase where the final evaluation of the project is undertaken, the design document is completed and the project's final report is prepared and submitted for approval.

Regarding the work of this process it was especially difficult to describe the Execution phase, to set the number of sessions and the content or focus area for each session. Our proposal for five sessions should be considered as a guideline and not as an absolute requirement, and it will be appropriate to consider adjustments for new projects.

4.2 Roles

The following roles were identified and must be represented when CCeD projects are to be implemented: (1) the

project manager having traditional project management responsibilities in relation to leadership and

management throughout the project, (2) the facilitator who will lead all sessions and contribute to relevant interdisciplinary cooperation between all participants, (3) the session secretary who will assist the facilitator with respect to the technical implementation of the sessions, (4) instructional designer(s) responsible for instructional strategies, learning activities, etc. that are to be documented in the Instructional Model, (5) the

subject matter expert(s) who is responsible for the development of the Knowledge Model that contains

information about competencies to be developed, learning needs and subject content, (6) technical delivery

expert(s) documenting the technical matters such as selection of technical platforms, infrastructure, solutions and

tools, in the Technical Delivery Model, (7) business expert(s) who should take care of business related issues and administrative needs, and document these in the Business Model, and (8) several other optional roles such as instructors, students and customer representatives who will cooperate with the above-mentioned roles, depending on the their own competence background, experiences and interests. One challenge with this is perhaps that it

seems large and extensive with many roles. However, we will also test the method in a down-scaled version, where one person typically can take responsibility for several roles simultaneously.

4.3 Models

The main delivery from a CCeD project is a design document which is composed of the following four sub- models:

1. The Instructional Model – detailing pedagogical activities or learning events that students and instructor(s) should conduct in connection with the course and relevant resources in this context.

2. The Knowledge Model – that contains the learning content and objectives, i.e. the kind of knowledge, skills and attitudes the students should acquire.

3. The Technical Delivery Model – containing an overview of how the technical delivery will take place, and what technologies and tools that will be used in connection with the deliveries.

4. The Business Model – that describes economic conditions, i.e. costs and incomes, intellectual property rights (IPR), any agreements that must be entered into, administrative guidelines and requirements in relation to the delivery timing, needed resources, etc., for the upcoming e-learning delivery.

It has been challenging to decide what to focus on for each of the four sub-models since several aspects are relevant to several of the models. Nevertheless, our opinion is that such a division will help us to focus on all aspects of the e-learning delivery and contribute to a comprehensive design document that totally contains all the necessary aspects. Furthermore, it might be needed to modify the focus area for each model, but we will decide on this when we have collected more empirical data from specific test cases.

4.4 Tools

There are many tools that are designed to describe teaching-learning processes in a formal way, and some of these tools (e.g. the ReCourse Learning Design Editor) are based on formal pedagogical standards such as the IMS Learning Design (Koper & Tattersall, 2005). Our choice of tools has been inspired by the TELOS (TELelearning Operation System) Scenario Editor and the TELOS Ontology Editor (Paquette & Magnan, 2008), since these seems to support multidisciplinary collaboration and model driven development where various aspects of the e-learning design is represented in different but integrated models. However, we have decided to use general tools that are not specifically designed to describe teaching-learning processes, in the first place. Our selection is mind mapping software (MindManager® from Mindjet®) and the new powerful collaboration solution (Mindjet Catalyst™). Mindjet Catalyst combines secure online workspaces, web conferencing and a best-in-class visual productivity application (mind mapping), and teams can visually connect and share ideas and information during the design process (Mindjet, 2009).

In order to offer powerful tool support for the participants and to avoid a large overlap between the four evolving models we decided to make predefined templates for each model. These templates are realized as MindManager templates and new sub-models (Instructional Models, Knowledge Models, Technical Delivery Models and Business Models) are based on the respective template when they are created. The templates contain detailed information regarding the questions different designers should consider, in each of the sessions, during the

Execution phase of a CCeD project. After the last session (Session V), we will merge the four models and create

one common model representing the entire e-learning design. To make a final e-learning design document which is independent of the development tools, we will typically take advantage of the Export to Microsoft Word feature in MindManager.

It has been challenging to determine what should be represented in the various templates, and also to decide when and in what order one should focus on specific elements during the design process. Therefore, we also expect to make adjustments to the templates, based on empirical data collected from specific test cases. One of the advantages of using general tools such as MindManager, is that it probably is easier to get started for all parties involved, as compared with specialist tools for instructional design. However, it might be a disadvantage

instructional design purposes. Therefore, we will evaluate how well mind maps works in relation to instructional design and we will also consider taking advantage of more specialized instructional design tools in future CCeD implementations.

4.5 The Facility and the Infrastructure

Our institution established a concurrent design facility as part of a project where several engineering disciplines (electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, materials engineering, logistics and software engineering) aimed to test the concurrent design methodology, as we know it from space technology institutions. This concurrent design facility is realized as a room with the necessary technical equipment, and this room is also used when CCeD sessions are conducted. The room is equipped as follows:

x Four tables (working table A-D), each with four workstations (computers) and one common large screen for that table. The common large screen is primarily used to present the desktop of one of the workstations on the same table, but it is also possible to present the desktop of one of the other workstations in the room. Each of the four sub-models (Instructional Model, Knowledge Model, Technical Delivery Model and

Business Model) is developed at one of the four tables when CCeD sessions are carried out in this room,

meaning that we have room for four participants on each sub-model.

x A management table where workstations for the facilitator and the session secretary are placed. This table is placed centrally between working table A-D, so that the facilitator and the session secretary have a good overview and can stimulate to cooperation between the working groups in the sessions.

x Two video projectors that are primarily used when the facilitators wants to convey something to the whole group. The desktop from each of the sixteen workstations on the four working tables and the two workstations on the management table can be presented through these video projectors.

One of the biggest challenges faced when this facility was established, was to find a solution to switch any workstation desktop to any screen or video projector. There exist video splitters (hardware) to do this, but since these are relatively expensive we decided to use a software based solution. Our choice was the NetSupport School software from NetSupport Ltd, since this software covered our basic needs regarding the presentation of any workstation desktop to any screen (NetSupport, 2009).

The infrastructure is in this context an arena for exchange of information, documentation and other resources among project participants. It should be easily available for everyone during the whole project so that everyone can take advantage of relevant material. First we established a Microsoft SharePoint Server to meet this objective, but since Mindjet Catalyst also provides a secure online work spaces, we decided to use this. We had no particular problems with the SharePoint solution, but decided to use the Mindjet Catalyst solution, just to reduce the number of solutions for the project participants. Several of the project participants have expressed that they feel comfortable working in the clouds, and that it is very beneficial to have easy access to what the other