Table 1 The table below provides the details of each phase of the production process and areas that impact rapid e-Learning decisions. For a project resulting in two hour’s e-Learning experience, the typical time involved is: Project Initiation — varies Development — 18 days Production — 28 days Testing/Release — 9 days
| Phase/task | Resources | Comments for Rapid e-Learning considerations |
Project initiation phase
|
Quickly determine rapid e-Learning requirements and qualifications; get approval that this project falls under rapid development. | |
Content and systems planning phase
|
||
| Design e-Learning document development | SME, ID, Mgr. Interactive | Agree with your team on the documentation and collaboration tools and processes to use. |
| Design document review | Dir. Development | |
| Contractual design document | Management, ID | Involve legal early, if needed. They require more time than others do. |
| Write (outline) content based on e-Learning design | SME | Educate SMEs, control interviews with guided questions, and provide template questions or tools. |
| Analyze/clarify/distill/categorize content | Writer | Educate and guide. |
| QA e-Learning design, content review | Editor | Use models, templates, produce prototypes for quick approvals. |
| Graphic, theme, interactive design requirements | Art Director | Educate and guide. |
| Interactive design and content plan review | Mgr. Interactive | Educate and guide. |
| Finalizing systems and LMS features | Developer | Involve IT early. Negotiate for an exemption. |
| Review design/plan, review/approval to client | Management | Use models, templates, produce prototypes for quick approvals. |
Project Phase
|
Use your approved architecture | |
| Develop storyboard | Instructional Technologist Mgr. Interactive, Art Director | Use models, templates. Develop a rapid storyboard by using outline content format with references to standard style in graphics and interactivities. |
| Create graphics and interactivities | Art Director, Program Developer | Use reference library and clearly state style expectations. Prepare creative briefs for standards. |
| Storyboard review | SME | Get consent from SMEs so that they follow your content development architecture. Changes will occur quickly by involving them in the collaboration process and use of the software. |
| Storyboard review/revision | Project Lead | |
| Editing | Editor | Start this early with SME content submission. |
| Evaluation/adjustment | Management | |
| Integration of content to database and other software | Program Developer | Plan ahead for this. Let IT test the type of integration challenges you may face. Test ahead of time. |
| Permission/producing graphics | Dir. Development | Avoid using photos not within the creative briefs. Securing and looking for photos takes time. Ask artists to search for photos as concepts develop in the content. Ensure writers provide clear image guides. |
| Revision of graphics/interactivities | Graphic Designer, Program Developer | |
| Final assembly | Program Developer | Test final assembly by doing prototypes. Don’t wait for your project content to be finished and then test with LMS and other components. |
| Proofreading | Proofreader | Do early in the process. Have a proofreader in writing stage. |
| Testing and prototype delivery | Program Developer | Do a prototype at the earliest possible time. Focus on prototyping all key decisions since decisions may hinder speed in development. |
| Review | ID, SME, Project Lead | Review is in every step of the process, not at a final point. |
Testing/Release Phase
|
||
| Alpha version review | Management | Construct prototypes to cut time when alpha and beta testing. |
| Client review | Management | Involves clients, targets users ahead of the timeframes, and seeks agreement that their review is on progression of completion of programs, not when the program is done. Focus on small and constant reviews. |
| Post-client evaluation (if necessary) | Management, Project Lead | |
| Implementation of client changes | Program Developer | Agree in kickoff meeting to rigid policies and procedures. Avoid changes at all costs, and get agreement on the types of changes that are showstoppers, and which are minor changes that can be done in updates. |
| First round of functional QA | Tester | Assign testers as separate people, not the writers, software developers, or others doing the developing. |
| Implementation of QA changes | Program Developer | |
| Build Beta version | Management | |
| Second round of functional QA | Tester | |
| Regressive QA | Proofreader, ID | This is always necessary to focus on. Rapid development requires that you pay attention to software and parts of your program that must be reviewed for consistency and functionality, especially if you’re rushing and adding late features into your software. |
Table 2 In determining the ROI or viability of a rapid e-Learning development project, it is essential to determine that rapid e-Learning is in high demand, and that such effort can be linked to the expected business outcomes and gains. This exercise helps you assess the critical factors and to arrive at a “go or no go” decision. Rate each consideration by entering or writing the points in the ENTRY space. Then, add the points to gain insights about whether you should go ahead with the project.
| Consideration | Criteria | Points | Value |
|
Number of Learners |
If there are: Fewer than 50 50 to 100 More than 100 |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Distance of learners from existing training site |
If bringing the average learner to an existing site: Does not require an overnight stay Does require an overnight stay Requires many overnight stays |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Software in place and trained staff |
Is software in place and staff trained: No Intermediate Experienced |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Number of times this training program will be offered |
Do learners require training: Only once Two to five times Six to 19 times 20 times or more |
0 3 5 10 |
|
|
Frequency of updates |
If changes/updates will be needed: Six months or more Between three and six months Every three months or less |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Development time available |
If training must be available in: Three months or more Between one to three months Less than one month |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Preferred learning style |
If learners prefer: Classroom-like learning controlled by lectures and traditional models Virtual Classroom – lecture online Fast-paced learning where they can take control based on their need to perform faster |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Availability of e-Learning architecture |
Is a sound e-Learning architecture for this type of project/design already in place? No Yes |
0 10 |
|
|
Preferred training schedule |
Is it more appropriate to: Set training schedules? Mix? Allow learners to set schedules? |
3 5 10 |
|
|
Openness of Subject Matter Experts to e-Learning architecture |
Are your SMEs open to the idea of having an e-Learning architecture to aid in the rapid development of e-Learning programs? No Maybe Yes |
0 3 10 |
|
|
Current computer proficiency |
If learners: Do not know how to use a PC and do not need one in their job Do not know how to use a PC but need one on their job Know how to use a computer |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Software skills |
If SMEs and e-Trainers: Do not have basic skills in contributing through software Know how to use PowerPoint, HTML, Dreamweaver, Front Page, Adobe PDF and MS Word and Excel for basic content development Know how to run media development and tools such as Flash, Authorware, etc. for interactive design. |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Current learner skill level |
If learners: Have widely varying skill levels Have varying skills All have the same skill level |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Need for individualized remediation |
If learners: Will likely need remediation Will likely not need remediation |
0 10 |
|
|
Application of knowledge (learning outcomes) |
If the staff: Is required to apply knowledge primarily for retention, completion and certification processes Is required to apply knowledge and skills instantly in their particular tasks Is required to obtain knowledge only |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Consistency |
If consistency of instruction is: Very important Somewhat important Not important |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Content already available on e-Learning format |
If e-Learning program: Must be developed to meet requirements Can be purchased and modified to meet needs Can be purchased and used without modification |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Availability of content |
If content is: Not available – still has to be researched and built from scratch Partially available – existing content still needs to be revised/add new information that still has to be researched Available and “must learn”/critical content already identified |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Type of content |
If skills are: Interpersonal Technical Knowledge |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Management’s past experience with e-Learning |
If past experience was: Not favorable Neutral Very favorable |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Past experience in dealing with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) |
Based from previous dealings with SMEs, were they: Not readily available and uncooperative Cooperative, but are difficult to schedule meetings with Always available and cooperative |
0 5 10 |
|
|
General view of technology |
If management views computer technology as: Awful A necessary evil Great |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Budgeting scheme |
For cost comparisons. If development costs: Are separated from the cost of delivery Are included with delivery cost |
0 10 |
|
|
Availability of hardware at learner site |
If hardware at learner site is: Not available Available but needs upgrading Available, no upgrade required |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Learning Management System (LMS) or Learning Content Management System (LCMS) and Integration in place |
Is a LMS or LCMS already existing and in place? No Yes |
0 10 |
|
|
Budget situation |
If cash funding is: Slow Adequate Good |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Access to LMS |
If the control and access to a Learning Management System: Is limited to the IT team Can be shared with other members of the development team Is managed and operated by designers or trainers who must implement e-Learning |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Management’s perception of person making the e-Learning recommendation |
If person making the recommendation: Has a poor track record Has a fair track record Has a successful track record |
0 3 10 |
|
|
Work environment and culture |
Is the work environment inclined to support collaboration among team members? Not at all Neutral Yes |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Availability and skills of project management staff |
If staff can: Not adequately manage rapid development of an e-Learning program Manage this type of project with relative ease |
0 10 |
|
|
Availability of production hardware and supplies |
If production hardware and supplies are: Not available Partially available but needs upgrade Not needed Available |
0 3 5 10 |
|
|
Availability of templates and content development tools |
If templates and content development tools are: Not available Partially available but need extensive modifications Immediately available and can easily be reused for other projects |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Availability, knowledge and capability of staff in designing and authoring tools/ language |
If staff: Does not know anything about designing and authoring Can outsource the process quickly, given that staff capabilities and resources are insufficient for rapid development Can design and author e-Learning programs rapidly |
0 5 10 |
|
|
Availability of hardware troubleshooter/quality control |
If troubleshooters: Cannot be made available Can be made available |
5 10 |
|
|
Availability of Subject Matter Experts |
If content questions must be answered and SMEs: Cannot be made available on site Can be made available on site |
5 10 |
|
|
Use of existing trainers |
If trainers now on staff: Will no longer be needed Can be transferred to a new position Can be used on rapid e-Learning projects |
0 5 10 |
