What processes, project artifacts, or activities did you include in the project that contributed to its success?
Originally, before we chose to revamp our English curriculum for developmental into ENG 85 and 95 we considered merely expanding the four courses-Reading 80 and 90 and English 80 and 90- that the two new ones replaced. The numbering for these courses would have been ENG 85 and 95 and Reading 85 and 95. In retrospect, this pilot program was doomed from its inception. We had six team members as part of the group to whom this task was assigned. This seemed like a good number because we are all competent in our given areas, but in the end this number proved to be our first fatal flaw. In our SOW we broke up the work amongst the group, but due yop our numbers it could not be split up equally, in any way. Next we ran into the problem of redundancy. Because all the courses had a very similar set of goals and such, we soon were faced with the type of overkill that pushed us to want to make a change initially. The software was yet another challenge because we were charged with adding a technology component to these new courses by the college. Due to our different goals and ideas for this program we could never really agree on much of anything, except in the end to scrap this effort and start again fresh with the new ENG 85 and 95 format that we now use regularly.
There was not a lot that could be deemed successful about this initial attempt, but we did narrow it down to two classes and discovered suitable software that could be used for each of those. Also we decided to limit our team members and to install Project Managers for each course. Those were really the only bright spots in this endeavor.
What processes, project artifacts, or activities did you not include in the project that might have made the project more successful?
To have made this offering more successful we could have structured our hierarchy of leadership better, as we did with the second offering. Also we set a schedule with firm deadlines for the completion of modules during this second attempt and this would have helped us a lot in the first offering. Also using a PM for each course seemed to give us a bit more structure and thus more cohesion as we got closer to launching our efforts for our students.
As far as activities go we chose these through our small groups and each of us had an equal vote with the PM as the tie-breaker in that case. This worked well and soon we had completed our task.
If we had chosen to operate in this manner in the first place we could have finished our task of on deadline, but it is probably best that we went through the growing pains of revamping a curriculum because now it will be that much easier if we are ever faced with this obstacle again.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Wes,
ReplyDeleteHow much time and money was lost? Yes, to make this more succesful, the leaders of the project should be established from day one. If there are too many people who are able to vote and decided what they want, everyone will not agree at some point. The decisons should be left to one or two people, not an entire group. I think that everyone should be able to brainstorm and offer ideas but only a select few should have the authority to implement what they think is the best way to go. As you said, smaller groups could work too.
Heidi
Yes, in this case there were too many chiefs and not enough indians-for lack of a better example.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't so much the monetary losses(though we did lose countless paid man-hours in our first attempt but the overall ineptness of our attempt that bothered me the most.
Yes, it did work better with our second attempt. It is currently in its second semester of operation and is working great.
Wes,
ReplyDeleteAs I read through your example, I was struck with how common this example actually is. So often people are put onto a committee (for lack of a better word), given an outcome to achieve and told to go achieve it. The people on the committee are usually all very competent, that is why they are on the committee, but clear direction is not provided and unless someone arises, by some form of group consensus, as a leader the project will often fail. Sometimes it works, but sometimes it falls apart like you described. I think your example really points to the advantages of having a project manager and using some project management techniques. It is great that you had a second chance and could implement some structure, including a project manager, into to your second redesign. I am curious what process did you go through to come up with the changes you made in the second redesign? How was it determined to use a PM the second time? Was in the decision of some “upper management – principle” , or did you as a group do a “post-mortem” and decide from there?
Marne
Reading your post reminded me of the start of democracy. When people wanted to eliminate the monarchy, they realized that millions of voices calling for different directions was going to get them no where. That was why we have representatives.
ReplyDeleteDeadlines are always helpful. Some people do not always need a deadline, they get their work done as soon as they can and proceed to the next task. Those that are multi-taskers or procrastinators need a deadline. Multi-taskers need it to prioritize which task needs to be done first, then second, then third, and so on. Procrastinators need it for, oh well, I can get to that later.