First, I would like to declare that this project was not
a total failure. The outcomes that were put before us were met; however two of the
long term goals that should have been included in the scope were not met. In
the beginning, the department in charge of our on-campus peer and certified
tutoring center was looking for a way to provide online tutoring. I was asked
to consult on the technology that would be needed to make this a reality. We
took a look at outsourcing and the cost of doing it in house with the tutors we
already had. Then the director made contact with a grant that would allow us
free access to their online whiteboard software. The grant also would fund the
technology, the tutors during development and for the first piloting, and a
coordinator position. I accepted the coordinator position and began bringing
together the list of technology we would need to make it work. In my contract I
was also tasked with designing the program, managing the tutors, evaluating the
technologies performance, creating a training program for future tutors, and
reporting to the grant. I was really in for a treat of being tossed in the deep
end.
The grant requirements of purchasing the technology had
to be met in 1 month and piloting had to be met in 5 months from when I was
brought in to consult. This was one of the first factors that led to design and
development issues. However, I had a great team working for me and two people
on the grant that smoothed things out so we could properly test the technology.
It ended up that the interactive whiteboard was a terrible product and we had
to go a different direction mid-pilot, but we tried to use it and get the
developers to make changes. I loved Greer’s (2010) question about “if you could
wave a magic wand”; I would have most certainly chosen a different interactive
platform, but the grant insisted we use their product and they funded the
thing. So of course!
On the positive side again, the tutors helped immensely with
the training design as I could use them as Beta testers and extra sets of eyes
to catch mistakes. I was able to create a viable training in a couple weeks
with their help that dealt with the mid-pilot changes we made. I could not have
done it without them. The tutors also marketed the program by going out to every
on-campus Math class and letting the students know online tutoring was
available. Our student usage during the first and second pilot, while low, was
20x more than current use. I place this completely on the marketing of the
program.
The grant reporting structure was another hurdle. The
grant people did not have standard forms for the type of program we were
building. I had to create things on the fly and so they evolved throughout the
project. This was not terrible, but made reviewing things for my end project
analysis and report difficult. In this case, taking some time to develop
reporting and change documents would have been very beneficial (Portny, et al.,
2008). Document, document, document…
As I’ve mentioned the marketing of the program has shown
to be the difference in student usage over the years. Marketing was not
included in the original scope, but was added in as we went to pilot out of necessity.
Scope creep is the new term for this that I was unaware of before this project
management course. It absolutely led to long hours developing materials and a
game plan for promoting the program. I had a good group that rolled with it and
took care of business.
So in the end we delivered what was requested and then
some, but the student usage has just never developed. Time moved on, people
changed jobs, and priorities reshuffled to the point where the program is
nearly dead in the water. I know this cannot happen as we need “equal access to
resources” as my boss puts it. So I have taken up the torch again and am in the
process of meeting with stakeholders, planning marketing efforts, and
reevaluating outsourcing. We shall see if the things I have learned in the past
3 years make a difference in how I approach this. While I am not formally doing
project management I am incorporating the parts of it I need.
Resources
Greer,
M. (2010). The project management minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your
projects! (Laureate custom ed.). Baltimore: Laureate Education, Inc.
Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu/bbcswebdav/institution/USW1/201420_04/MS_INDT/EDUC_6145/Week
1/Resources/Week 1 Resources/embedded/PM-Minimalist-Ver-3-Laureate.pdf
I was rereading this while doing a project review of online tutoring for my boss (happy coincidence!). I believe I gave a mis-impression that the grant was responsible for the choice of the interactive technology. I had forgotten that I initially mentioned the grant had purchased a product that included a whiteboard, and there was no reason to spend 10K on a different system they were evaluating if what we already owned would do the job. I had yet to work with the system though. What can I say? I was, and still am green.
ReplyDeleteLucas, I am happy that you were able to follow through and get this project complete. So was the whiteboard a problem or was it just a particular board you were not familiar with? How was your team able to deal with the marketing aspect without losing money, time and sleep?
ReplyDeleteThere were functional issues with the technology. The company who sold it to the college later admitted it was something they put together as a pilot for another institution. The system was not fully worked out. The tutors did have to work some overtime to hit all of the classes, but it was only on 6 days over 2 weeks. So it was not too rough. No one had real marketing skills and we had to plan these events and documents (flyers, announcements, etc.) on the fly, interrupting other program development that needed done.
ReplyDeleteLucas, I think you and your team made a great job with "the cards you're dealt".
ReplyDeleteThe interactive platform, had no one tested it before it was purchased? Do you think this is a common problem, someone buy stuff and others have to use them and realize that it will not do the work well, but are forced to use it anyway?
/Millan
Lucas,
ReplyDeleteHaving been in similar grant situations I commend you for producing a product that exceeded expectations of the grant deliverables. Grant parameters often provide constraints which hinder creativity in one area but increase creativity in dealing with problem solving while meeting the grant constraints. While sometimes frustrating you do learn a lot that can be used in future situations, don't you think?