A Tool for Determining e-Learning Readiness (SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology) [1st ed. 2021] 3030769933, 9783030769932

Citation preview

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN EDUC ATIONAL COMMUNIC ATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

Cathy James-Springer Katherine Cennamo

A Tool for Determining e-Learning Readiness

SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology

Series Editors J. Michael Spector, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA M. J. Bishop, University System of Maryland, Adelphi, MD, USA Dirk Ifenthaler, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11821

Cathy James-Springer • Katherine Cennamo

A Tool for Determining e-Learning Readiness

Cathy James-Springer Sir Arthur Lewis Community College Castries, Saint Lucia

Katherine Cennamo School of Education Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA, USA

ISSN 2196-498X     ISSN 2196-4998 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology ISBN 978-3-030-76993-2    ISBN 978-3-030-76994-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76994-9 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

In the early days of e-Learning, among the many reasons given for adoption of e-Learning were to remain competitive (Conkova, 2013) and save costs (Rosenberg, 2001) when compared to the face-to-face alternatives for training. As time went by, e-Learning continued to grow as an instructional modality (State of the Industry Report, 2018). Fast forward to 2020 where COVID-19 forced everything to move online. e-Learning now, more than ever, has become the modality of choice for training and learning initiatives. When this design and development research began, the motivation was to develop a tool that would allow organizations to effectively adopt e-Learning. When e-Learning initially emerged, many organizations implemented e-Learning without a clear plan, resulting in failure or a poorly implemented initiative. Indeed, lack of readiness has been associated with problems with e-Learning adoption (Rosenberg, 2001). The changing world environment has now made it imperative that e-Learning be adopted, making proper implementation also crucial. The tool design process closely follows design and development research methodologies, as outlined in Richey and Klein (2007). The process began with an initial exploration of existing models and tools, and then integrated ideas derived from a systematic examination of multidisciplinary literature to result in a new tool that establishes the link between theory and practice. Beyond Richey and Klein (2007), the works of Van den Akker et al. (2012) were also explored to provide additional insight on design and development research. Ellis and Levy (2010) elaborate on the necessity for creating artifacts such as new tools, products, or processes. Their ideas guide the methodology chosen for the design of the practical elements of the tool. The processes of Ellis and Levy (2010) and Nunamaker et al. (1990) are incorporated into the descriptions of the design and development process outlined herein. The tool emerges as the artifact of this research. For individuals within organizations who will utilize the tool, it was important to have a tool that is easy to use and apply. The tool had to be useful to both organizations looking to newly adopt e-Learning and to those looking to review their implemented processes. The tool, as designed, allows information to be captured from multiple perspectives within the organization in order to get a holistic view of readiness. v

vi

Preface

The tool allows an evaluation of readiness in four main areas: organizational environment readiness, human resource and capacity readiness, technology and practice readiness, and, most importantly, learner readiness. The tool is designed in such a way that the data collected can be easily collated and utilized. Additionally, the structure of the tool allows for organizations to make decisions based on the results; they can choose to be ready as a whole or in parts. Castries, Saint Lucia Blacksburg, VA, USA

Cathy James-Springer Katherine Cennamo

References ATD Research. (2018). State of the industry 2018 ASTD state of the industry report. Alexandria, VA: ATD Conková, M. (2013). Analysis of perceptions of conventional and e-learning education in corporate training. Journal of Competitiveness, 5(4), 74–97. Ellis, T. J., & Levy, Y. (2010). A guide for novice researchers: Design and development research methods. In E. Cohen (Ed.), Proceedings of Informing Science & IT Education Conference, InSITE (pp.108–118). Cassino, Italy Nunamaker Jr, J. F., Chen, M., & Purdin, T. D. (1990). Systems development in information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(3), 89–106. Richey, R., & Klein, J.  D. (2007). Design and development research: Methods, strategies, and issues. New York, NY: Routledge. Rosenberg, M.  J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Van den Akker, J. V. D., Branch, R. M., Gustafson, K., Nieveen, N., & Plomp, T. (2012). Design approaches and tools in education and training. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated.

Contents

1 Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������     1 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������     1 Organization of the Book������������������������������������������������������������������������     2 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������     3 2 e-Learning Readiness����������������������������������������������������������������������������     5 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������     5 Defining e-Learning ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������     5 Defining e-Learning Readiness����������������������������������������������������������������     7 Why Is Determining e-Learning Readiness Important?��������������������������     7 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������     9 3 Tool Design����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    11 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    11 Tool Development as Design and Development Research����������������������    11 Analysis����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    13 Analysis One����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    14 Analysis Two����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    19 Analysis Three ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    19 Design and Development ������������������������������������������������������������������������    22 Evaluation������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    23 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    24 4 Structure of the Tool������������������������������������������������������������������������������    27 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    27 e-Learning Adoption as a System������������������������������������������������������������    27 Tool Structure������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    28 Part 1: The Surveys������������������������������������������������������������������������������    30 Part 2: Final Checklist, Including Recommendations��������������������������    33 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    34

vii

viii

Contents

5 Organizational Environment Readiness����������������������������������������������    35 The Organizational Environment������������������������������������������������������������    35 Organizational Goals���������������������������������������������������������������������������    35 Leadership and Management Support ������������������������������������������������    37 Learning Culture and the Learning Organization��������������������������������    38 Finance������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    41 Survey A: Organizational Environment Readiness����������������������������������    45 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    48 6 Human Resource and Capacity Readiness������������������������������������������    51 Human Resource Dimensions������������������������������������������������������������������    51 Human Resources as a Department ����������������������������������������������������    52 Human Resources as Capacity������������������������������������������������������������    53 Human Resource and Learners������������������������������������������������������������    56 Survey B: Human Resource and Capacity Survey����������������������������������    59 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    61 7 Technology and Practice Readiness������������������������������������������������������    63 Technology Readiness ����������������������������������������������������������������������������    63 The Information Technology (IT) Department������������������������������������    64 Infrastructure����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    64 IT and the User������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    65 Integration Concerns����������������������������������������������������������������������������    67 Survey C: Technology and Practice ��������������������������������������������������������    69 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    72 8 Learner Readiness ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������    75 Learner Characteristics and Skills ����������������������������������������������������������    75 What Are the Characteristics of a Good E-Learner? ��������������������������    75 What Special Technical Skills Should an E-Learner Have?����������������    77 Survey D: Learner Readiness������������������������������������������������������������������    80 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    82 9 How to Use the e-Learning Readiness Tool ����������������������������������������    85 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    85 Using the e-Learning Readiness Tool������������������������������������������������������    85 Survey and Checklists��������������������������������������������������������������������������    85 How to Use the Tool����������������������������������������������������������������������������    86 How to Use the Data from Surveys������������������������������������������������������    88 Reflecting on the Outcomes ����������������������������������������������������������������    91 Reference ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    92 10 Implications of Using the Tool��������������������������������������������������������������    93 Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    93 Implications of Decisions for Content Design����������������������������������������    93 Reference ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    95

Contents

ix

11 Challenges and Future Opportunities��������������������������������������������������    97 The External Context and e-Learning Readiness������������������������������������    97 Further Research in e-Learning Readiness����������������������������������������������    99 References������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    99 Appendix A ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   101 Appendix B: Recommendations ������������������������������������������������������������������   107 Index����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   111

About the Authors

Cathy  James-Springer  is currently the manager, Institutional Effectiveness and Transformation, at the Sir Arthur Lewis Community College, in St. Lucia, West Indies. She completed her doctorate in instructional design and technology at Virginia Tech in 2016 as a Fulbright scholar from the island of St. Lucia in the Caribbean. She holds a Master of Science degree in science education from Montana State University (Bozeman) and a Bachelor of Science degree in biology and chemistry from the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus. With a background in biology and chemistry, she has always been interested in designing and delivering science instruction in ways that students can relate to and apply in the real world. Her interest in making science education more real has led to her current pursuits in instructional design and technology. She has experience in online instruction, faculty training, and designing online, blended, and flipped classrooms. With the emergence of new technological tools, she continues to be interested in how e-Learning can enhance instruction. Katherine  Cennamo  is a professor of instructional design and technology at Virginia Tech. She has a bachelor’s degree in elementary education from Virginia Tech, a master’s degree in educational media from the University of Arizona, and a Ph.D. in instructional technology from the University of Texas at Austin. Throughout her career, Dr. Cennamo’s work has focused on the application of learning theories to the design of technology-based instructional materials. Through numerous funded projects, publications, presentations, instructional materials, and teaching activities, she has disseminated knowledge of instructional strategies based on established theories of learning, illuminated the nature of instructional design practice so that scholars and designers alike better understand their work, and applied this knowledge to the preparation of future instructional design professionals. She has synthesized much of this work in her textbooks, Real World Instructional Design, co-authored with Debby Kalk, and Integrating Technology for Meaningful Classroom Use, coauthored with John Ross and Peggy Ertmer. Currently, her research and service activities focus on developing and sustaining a classroom culture that fosters critical and creative thinking skills in K-12 and higher education environments.

xi

Chapter 1

Introduction

Introduction The use of e-Learning in the workplace continues to grow. e-Learning is now seen as a critical component of learning and development within organizations (Docebo, 2018). In the 2018 State of the Industry Report, the Association for Talent Development (ATD) estimates “the percentage of companies offering the majority of their learning assets as e-Learning doubling between 2017–2022” (Ho, 2018, p. 43), as organizations continue to see the value of this modality, even with its challenges. Docebo (2018) anticipates a growth of 8% from 2019 to 2025. This growth is even more apparent as COVID-19 forced most activity online. Schools and workplace training have been forced to operate using remote options whether they are ready or not. What are the advantages of e-Learning? In the early days of e-Learning adoption, the main reason cited for development of e-Learning was to be competitive (Comacchio & Scapolan, 2004). Additionally, e-Learning was seen as a way of saving on costs associated with getting employees to training sites (Rosenberg, 2001) and other cost factors associated with training. According to the Docebo (2014) report, the direct training expenditure per employee is reduced with e-Learning, particularly in organizations with more than 10,000 employees. This results in spending less to reach more. Training can occur simultaneously in more than one location, so cost savings are particularly significant in companies with geographically dispersed locations (Conková, 2013). e-Learning is perceived to be the secret to ensuring that a company keeps a “competitive edge,” as e-Learning facilitates delivery of “just in time” training as a means of keeping employees up to date. This anywhere, anytime type of training seems to be another major reason for choosing e-Learning (Rosenberg, 2001). Simply put, organizations use e-Learning to remain competitive and save on the cost of training. The advantages of e-Learning continue to be well documented, and with the emergence of new learning technologies, the e-Learning trend is expected to continue. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. James-Springer, K. Cennamo, A Tool for Determining e-Learning Readiness, SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76994-9_1

1

2

1 Introduction

Creutz and Wiklund (2014) observe that the focus of e-Learning and definitions of e-Learning continue to evolve with time. Initially, the focus of e-Learning adoption was related primarily to the main reasons for adoption, such as flexibility and cost saving. Later, companies began to emphasize the need to focus on learners and learning elements of e-Learning. This awareness only took place after implementation of e-Learning and the discovery of challenges associated with e-Learning. Some of the challenges are the design of e-Learning in terms of learner interaction and engagement; the lack of consideration for business goals, environment, and culture; and the lack of comprehensive evaluation of the initiative (Wang, 2018). These challenges bring into focus the relevance of e-Learning and its relationship with employee attitudes and their ability or willingness to use the medium. The potential for growth of e-Learning is immense with the expansion of emerging technologies such as social media, mobile technologies, virtual reality, assistive technologies, and augmented realities (Wang, 2018; Docebo, 2018). With these positive prospects for e-Learning and the continued evolution of the field, determining a way to mitigate the associated challenges becomes paramount. This book presents a tool which can be used to conduct a comprehensive assessment of an organizations’ resources at one of two stages when adopting e-Learning: before adopting an e-Learning initiative or when reevaluating e-Learning efforts. The tool is based on three main pillars: 1. The learners who are users of the system 2. The organization and its environment 3. Technology as the main vehicle to facilitate instructional delivery As a product of design and development research, the tool represents an amalgamation of many ideas derived from multidisciplinary literature. The tool sets out to answer a critical question: “Are organizations ready for adoption of e-Learning?” The tool is designed as an initial analysis of the organization’s status. The data gathered is expected to give an indication of readiness. Determining e-Learning readiness requires deciding which factors can support and enable e-Learning. The information from the tool can assist in planning for e-Learning in an environment where individual characteristics of these organizations may vary. The tool development process began with an initial exploration of existing models and tools and then integrated ideas derived from a systematic examination of multidisciplinary literature to result in a new tool. Although Wang (2018) refers to the many challenges faced when embarking on the e-Learning journey, the process utilized helped design a valid and reliable tool for exploring e-Learning readiness.

Organization of the Book This book is intended to guide the process of determining e-Learning readiness by illuminating  the concept of e-Learning readiness through the various chapters. It describes a  tool that  was developed as a practical job aid which can be used by

References

3

organizations, both before they begin to offer e-Learning and after implementation in order to strengthen and sustain the initiative. Chapter 2 focuses on the purpose for developing the tool. Chapter 3 describes the design and development process for the e-Learning readiness tool. Chapter 4 outlines the structure of the tool with Chaps. 5, 6, 7, and 8 elaborating on each component. Chapter 9 gives readers a guide as to how the tool can be used, and Chaps. 10 and 11 discuss the implications of using the tool along with conclusions and the next steps for e-Learning readiness research.

References Comacchio, A., & Scapolan, A. (2004). The adoption process of corporate e-learning in Italy. Education + Training, 46(6/7), 315–325. Conková, M. (2013). Analysis of perceptions of conventional and e-learning education in corporate training. Journal of Competitiveness, 5(4), 73–97. Creutz, N.  I., & Wiklund, M. (2014). Learning paradigms in workplace e-learning research. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 6(3), 299–315. Docebo. (2014). Elearning market trends and forecast 2014–2016. Retrieved from https://bit. ly/3q9reF0 Docebo. (2018). Elearning market trends and forecast 2017–2021. Retrieved from https://bit. ly/2PuJfga Ho, M. (2018). Corporate Learning Keeps Holding Strong. TD: Talent Development, 72(12), 8–43. Rosenberg, M.  J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. McGraw-Hill. Wang, M. (2018). E-learning in the workplace. Springer.

Chapter 2

e-Learning Readiness

Introduction The terms e-Learning and e-Learning readiness have varying definitions depending on the context in which they are used. The chapter begins by defining e-Learning in the context of this research. It further attempts to define e-Learning readiness. The definition of e-Learning readiness is important as it sets the foundation for defining the parameters of the tool. The basis for the development of the tool is grounded in the need to determine e-Learning readiness. The final part of the chapter explains the importance of e-Learning readiness and why a tool that assists in determining e-Learning readiness is necessary.

Defining e-Learning Despite the adoption of e-Learning in the workplace, the definition of e-Learning continues to be a source of contention. Even in the State of the Industry 2018 report, produced by ATD Research (2018), there seems to be some confusion associated with the actual definition of e-Learning. In this report, use of virtual synchronous classrooms and teleconferences seems to be associated with face-to-face delivery modalities, while only self-paced online delivery is defined as e-Learning. Earlier definitions of e-Learning separate it into two parts: the medium and the process. Clark and Mayer (2011) describe e-Learning using the “e” as representative of the electronic element of e-Learning and “learning” as representative of the process. Since this definition of e-Learning, new perspectives on the definition of e-Learning have emerged. Several of these perspectives will be explored below in order to develop a working definition of e-Learning.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. James-Springer, K. Cennamo, A Tool for Determining e-Learning Readiness, SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76994-9_2

5

6

2  e-Learning Readiness

e-Learning may sometimes be related to the tools and infrastructure which are tied to its use. There are a variety of tools that can be used in the delivery of e-Learning. These range from simple communication tools such as messaging to more complex tools such as the use of virtual reality and artificial intelligence. Similarly, the infrastructure which influences the use of e-Learning seems to be included in the definition. Infrastructure refers to physical hardware which affects bandwidth and access. Infrastructure provides direct access to e-Learning content (Creutz & Wiklund, 2014). e-Learning is also related to the techniques or methods used in delivery. Differentiating between synchronous and asynchronous modes of e-Learning can help in understanding that e-Learning can take place in different ways. Synchronous interaction is interaction which takes place simultaneously between learner, peers, and instructor. It can be facilitated by tools such as live chats and videoconferencing (Giesbers et al., 2014). Asynchronous interaction is interaction which allows flexibility, as the learners, peers, and instructor do not have to be online at the same time. It is facilitated by use of discussion boards and e-mail (Hrastinski, 2008). Whether e-Learning takes place synchronously or asynchronously, the possibilities for delivery are likely to influence definitions of e-Learning. Another definition of e-Learning focuses on the performance aspect of learning. e-Learning represents one approach to improving human performance. As one in a group of possible instructional methods that can be used to address performance problems (Watkins, 2014), e-Learning is now emerging as a key asset within an overall training budget. Utilization of e-Learning necessitates addressing differences between face-to-face delivery and e-Learning. Since e-Learning is delivered by electronic medium, this may affect the way learners see and approach learning. e-Learning has implications related to the attitudes of learners toward using a computer or other digital technology as a platform for learning. Additionally, learners may not have the skills required to use e-Learning. These learner considerations remind us that an examination of e-Learning readiness can be informed by various disciplines such as the cognitive sciences which explore knowledge and how people learn (Creutz & Wiklund, 2014). Cheng et al. (2014) state that e-Learning in the workplace is multidisciplinary. They recognize that e-Learning possesses elements of “education, computer science, sociology, psychology and management” (p. 2). Human performance improvement cannot occur if learners are not willing to use the intervention. Having considered these many dimensions of e-Learning, and understanding that e-Learning is constantly changing, there are several foundational elements which should be considered in any definition of e-Learning. First is the relationship between the medium used for e-Learning and the pedagogical implications of using this medium for delivery of training. Additionally, learner needs in relation to using this type of learning must be considered. e-Learning is often geared toward disseminating training in a flexible and convenient way. Training can be facilitated by e-Learning in a variety of formats including asynchronous, synchronous, blended, self-paced, or instructor-guided approaches. e-Learning therefore represents the

Why Is Determining e-Learning Readiness Important?

7

delivery of instruction through digital means by using digital tools and a learning process which takes into consideration the purpose, the medium, and the audience.

Defining e-Learning Readiness As we continue the discussion on e-Learning readiness, the major question would be “What is e-Learning readiness?” If e-Learning readiness is to be tied to the definition of e-Learning, the assumption would be that readiness encompasses the two main elements of the delivery modality: computer technology and the “learning” component which is the process that learners go through, resulting in changes. This approach would be simplistic and minimalist considering the previous discussion of e-Learning itself. Saekow and Samson (2011) define e-Learning readiness as the “mental or physical preparedness of that organization for some e-Learning experience or action” (p. 126). This definition considers both the physical aspects such as infrastructure, and the psychological elements of being ready for e-Learning. After the initial euphoria of implementing e-Learning, the challenge of ensuring continuity of the initiative comes into question. Creutz and Wiklund (2014) describe a period of reflection, in which companies reflect on the implementation and recognize their failures and successes. Therefore, readiness should encompass what exists within the organization but also the resources that are in place to sustain the initiative. For the purposes of this book, e-Learning readiness can be defined as identifying the factors that enable and support the successful and effective implementation and sustainability of e-Learning within the organization.

Why Is Determining e-Learning Readiness Important? With the increased pace of changing technologies, International Labour Organization (ILO) (2010) identifies the need for organizations to constantly update their skills and knowledge to remain competitive. Indeed, organizations have identified varying reasons for adopting e-Learning, among them being the need to remain competitive. More recently, the elements of flexibility in learning and cost reduction seem to be at the forefront of reasons for e-Learning adoption (Serrat, 2017). In a world where e-Learning is becoming normal practice in the workplace, and in some cases traditional delivery has become almost impossible, it is still necessary for organizations to determine their level of readiness for adopting e-Learning. This is to say that organizations need to determine whether they have the capacity to undertake e-Learning. They can also assess where they are with regard to e-Learning. If e-Learning readiness is approached from the perspective of the organization’s capacity to undertake e-Learning, then determining readiness can be equated to conducting an analysis of the relevant resources within the organization that influence e-Learning. Generally, as part of

8

2  e-Learning Readiness

the instructional design process, many types of analysis are undertaken in preparation for instructional interventions, among them being needs assessments, environmental assessments, and performance analysis. This tool was developed from the recognition of the need for an evaluation tool which could assess the readiness of organizations to use e-Learning other than the traditional gap analysis and needs assessment. Tessmer’s (1990) “environmental analysis” seems to come closest to analysis that can be useful in looking at e-Learning spaces. In his article “Environmental Analysis: A Neglected Stage of Instructional Design,” Tessmer (1990) refers to environmental analysis in the context of instructional systems. He states that, although instructional design projects refer to the importance of understanding the environment, environmental analysis is underemphasized. Tessmer recommends two areas to be considered: the instructional environment and the support factors of the instructional environment. He suggests that environmental analysis should be conducted in the early stages of design projects because it affects design and product stages and decisions which will follow. Tessmer’s (1990) description of environmental analysis includes investigation of the physical environment. Today, if Tessmer’s ideas were to be examined and applied to e-Learning in organizations, the interpretation of environment would have many additions. It would include supporting structures within the organization, such as the environment relating to how resources are used, the culture, and resources which facilitate e-Learning, including technology and available facilities. Similarly, Dick et al. (2014) include a learner and context analysis phase in their model. They state that the outcomes of this analysis are directly related to the environment in which the skill will be used and the factors that would impede use of the new skill within the organization. Farquhar and Surry (1994) used the term “adoption analysis,” which focuses on the context of product implementation. Again, if e-Learning were to be considered the product, then the need for some analysis becomes obvious. e-Learning analysis would include similar parameters to those outlined in Tessmer (1990) and Farquhar and Surry (1994), with the additional dimension of technology which is incorporated in the context of the instructional system. Despite the existing analysis tools, it was imperative that an operational tool be developed to address and target factors specifically related to e-Learning. This tool needed to consider: • How would e-Learning affect the employee, in this case the learner? • How would the support systems within the organization facilitate the implementation of e-Learning? • What are the resources needed to undertake e-Learning? Some of these questions can be answered by other analysis, but they would lack targeted focus on concerns related to e-Learning. The purpose of the tool is to explore an organization’s readiness from a holistic systems perspective, instead of from isolated silos within the organization. Equally, it is important for the tool to consider the interrelatedness of issues within organizations that would affect e-Learning readiness and e-Learning implementation.

References

Organizaonal Environment (A) Human Resource and Capacity (B) Technology and Pracce (C) Learner Readiness (D)

Final Checklist and Recommendaons (E)

Fig. 2.1  Summary of components of the tool

9

Thus, the tool that is described here is a job aid that includes four major surveys which collect information from various parts of the organization (see Fig.  2.1). Survey A, organizational environment, collects data from the organization’s leaders; Survey B, human resources and capacity, is directed to the individuals who perform the human resource development function in the organization; Survey C, technology and practice, collects data from the information technology department; and Survey D, learners, collects information from the employees to whom the e-Learning will be directed. The data collected is eventually collated into the final checklist and recommendations (Table E). The purpose of the final checklist and recommendations is to collate the data from the four surveys into an easy-to-use format in order to identify areas of strengths and deficiencies regarding e-Learning readiness. The recommendations associated with the checklists have been developed through an extensive review of best-practices literature. The process used to design and develop the tool is detailed in Chap. 3.

References ATD Research. (2018). State of the industry 2018 ASTD state of the industry report. Alexandria VA: ATD Cheng, B., Wang, M., Mørch, A. I., & Chen, N. (2014). A bibliometric analysis of the literature. Collection and Curation, 38(1), 9–14. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons. Creutz, N.  I., & Wiklund, M. (2014). Learning paradigms in workplace e-learning research. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 6(3), 299–315. Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2014). The systematic design of instruction (8th ed.). Pearson. Farquhar, J.  D., & Surry, D.  W. (1994). Adoption analysis: An additional tool for instructional developers. Educational & Training Technology International, 31(1), 19–25. Giesbers, B., Rienties, B., Tempelaar, D., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). A dynamic analysis of the interplay between asynchronous and synchronous communication in online learning: The impact of motivation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 30–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jcal.12020 Hrastinski, S. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e-learning. Educause Quarterly, 31(4), 51–55.

10

2  e-Learning Readiness

ILO, A. (2010). Global employment trends. Geneva: ILO Saekow, A., & Samson, D. (2011). E-learning readiness of Thailand’s universities comparing to the USA’s cases. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e Learning, 1(2), 126–131. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJEEEE.2011.V1.20 Serrat, O. (2017). E-learning and the workplace. In Knowledge solutions (pp. 945–953). Springer. Tessmer, M. (1990). Environment analysis: A neglected stage of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 55–64. Watkins, R. (2014). Twenty essential questions for deciding if your organization is ready for E-learning. Distance Learning, 11(4), 47–50.

Chapter 3

Tool Design

Introduction This tool represents an amalgamation of many ideas derived from multidisciplinary literature. Previous e-Learning readiness models can be considered conceptual models, as described by Richey (1986) and show no process for determining e-Learning readiness. The e-Learning readiness tool developed for this research provides a way of making practical decisions about an instructional initiative. The tool design closely follows design and development research methodologies. Design and development research bridges the gap between theory and practice (Van den Akker et al., 2012). Tool design and development research requires careful documentation of the phases of the process (Richey & Klein, 2007); thus, this chapter describes the design and development process for the tool to determine e-Learning readiness. It begins with a brief description of the design and development research which guided the development of the tool, followed by a description of the analysis, design and development, and evaluation stages of this project.

Tool Development as Design and Development Research The design and development research process began with an initial exploration of existing models and tools and then integrated ideas derived from a systematic examination of multidisciplinary literature to result in a new tool that establishes the link between theory and practice. The research is a type II design, as described in Richey and Klein (2007), since its focus is on one aspect of the Instructional Systems Design (ISD) process, and it represents an improvement on existing models in an effort to create a generalizable instrument. Visscher-Voerman and Gustafson (2004) describe an instrumental paradigm which focuses on a planning-by-objective © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. James-Springer, K. Cennamo, A Tool for Determining e-Learning Readiness, SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76994-9_3

11

12

3  Tool Design

approach, in which the analysis phase bears great weight and informs the final outcomes. The foundational concepts for research focused on the design and development of tools, as outlined in Richey and Klein (2007), established the parameters of this research. This tool design is heavily weighted on the analysis phases of the research to inform the final tool design. First, it is necessary to differentiate between model and tool design research, with the main goal of bridging theory and practice. The structure and processes described in the development of this tool share characteristics of both tool and model design and development research. In tool design research, the focus is on a specific tool design supported by analysis of the conditions for use. Tool design research is usually context specific (Richey & Klein, 2007); this is where this research diverges from usual tool design. The tool designed is intended to be generalizable, a feature which is common to model design research. Van den Akker et al. (2012) describe design and development research as one way that users can create tools that can be applied practically. Though they describe the need for practical application, their focus is primarily on how to go about conducting model design research. The design of this readiness tool aimed to balance the processes of model design with tool design since model design information was readily available. However, the literature provided little guidance on how theoretical ideas associated with models can be translated to tool development. This awareness resulted in the exploration of information systems tool-design methodologies that elucidate the process that developers may go through in the design process. Ellis and Levy (2010) make the link between theory and practice as they describe design and development research from the perspective of information systems processes. Their six-step research framework clearly outlines the movement from theoretical and practical elements of research to the development and testing of an artifact. The six steps are outlined below: • • • • • •

Identify the problem. Describe the objectives. Design and develop the artifact. Test the artifact. Evaluate testing results. Communicate testing results.

The process emphasizes the need for research to be grounded in the literature as a way of differentiating between simple product development and design and development research. Ellis and Levy (2010) further describe three critical areas in the design and development of an artifact: building a conceptual framework, designing a system architecture, and building a prototype for testing and evaluation. Nunamaker et al. (1990) propose an integrated approach for conducting research based on system development. Their stages include: • Construct a conceptual framework. • Develop a system architecture. • Analyze and design a system.

Analysis

13

• Build a prototype. • Observe and evaluate the system. Both Ellis and Levy (2010) and Nunamaker et al. (1990) emphasize the need for a system architecture which involves identifying relevant components of the tool and the relationships that exist between them. Ellis and Levy (2010) elaborate on the necessity for creating artifacts, such as new tools, products, or processes. These ideas guide the methodology chosen for the design of the practical elements of the tool. The design and development phases of Ellis and Levy (2010) and Nunamaker et al. (1990) are based in information systems tool design approaches. Van den Akker et al. (2012) state that the purpose of design and development research is to improve the quality of an intervention. For this research, the processes of Ellis and Levy (2010) and Nunamaker et al. (1990) are integrated into the stages described below. The analysis phase, involving three steps as outlined in Table 3.1, was conducted to determine the factors that affect e-Learning adoption. The design and the development phases determined the final features and structure of the tool. In the final stage following the development of the tool, the evaluation phase helps determine both construct and content validity. The specific steps taken in the development of this tool are outlined in Table 3.1.

Analysis The analysis phases are a period of understanding the dimensions of the problem. Van den Akker et al. (2012) state that the purpose of a preliminary investigation of the problem is to gain “State of the Art knowledge” (p. 7) of the literature. This analysis helps build a conceptual framework for the tool development (Ellis & Levy, 2010). In this study, the tool is designed to be used in organizations planning to use e-Learning, and the expectation is that individual characteristics of these organizations may vary. The starting point for the tool development, analysis one, is a study Table 3.1  Summary of design and development process Phases of design and development Analysis

Design Development Evaluation

Description of the process Van den Akker et al. (2012) state that the purpose of a preliminary investigation of the problem is to gain “State of the Art knowledge” (p. 7) of the literature  Analysis 1: initial review of four existing models (Aydın & Tasci, 2005; Borotis & Poulymenakou, 2004; Chapnick, 2000; Psycharis, 2005)  Analysis 2: analysis of multidisciplinary literature in order to have a more holistic view of what to include in the tool  Analysis 3: a review of the e-Learning literature to establish a context for e-Learning Theoretical embedding Developing components of the tool Building of prototype or artifact Streamlining the tool and reinforcing the content and construct validity

14

3  Tool Design

Fig. 3.1  Levels of analysis

of existing models and tools. This is followed by a review of other multidisciplinary literature, analysis two, as a way of understanding the gaps in existing models and tools. The review of multidisciplinary literature filled the gaps revealed by the model analysis and helped guide the development and focus of questions in the tool. In the third stage of analysis, analysis three, e-Learning literature was analyzed to help understand contexts where e-Learning has been implemented and used to determine conditions that would affect the implementation of the tool. The three levels of analysis are outlined in Fig. 3.1.

Analysis One This phase of analysis involved the initial review of four existing models (Aydın & Tasci, 2005; Borotis & Poulymenakou, 2004; Chapnick, 2000; Psycharis, 2005) described below. The choice of e-Learning readiness models was based on the number of times they were cited and used in other e-Learning literature. Table 3.2 summarizes the factors important to e-Learning readiness identified by the models. The following section gives a more detailed analysis of the models. Aydın and Tasci (2005) Aydın and Tasci’s (2005) model was built through the development of an initial questionnaire to determine e-Learning readiness. The model emerges as part of the categories derived from the development of the questionnaire. The categories are further broken down into readiness factors and constructs. The readiness factors are technology, innovation, people, and self-development. The constructs are resources, skills, and attitudes. The model makes the linkages between each factor and construct: for example, technology as a factor is examined across constructs, resources include access to computers, skills include the ability to use computers, and attitudes in the model refers to attitudes toward technology.

Analysis

15

Table 3.2  Analysis of e-Learning readiness models Aydın and Tasci (2005) 1. Technology  Access  Learner skills and attitudes 2. Innovation  Barriers  Adoption  Openness 3. People  Employees  HR specialists  e-Learning champion  Vendors and external parties  Skills with respect to learning with technology 4. Self-development  Budget  Time management  Belief in self-development

Chapnick (2000) 1. Psychological 2. Technical Readiness 3. Environmental 4. Human resources 5. Sociological 6. Economic 7. Financial 8. Equipment 9. Content

Borotis and Poulymenakou (2004) 1. Business 2. Technology 3. Content 4. Training process 5. Culture 6. Hunan Resources 7. Financial

Psycharis (2005) 1. Resources  Technology  Financial  Human Resources 2. Education  Content  Educational 3. Environment  Entrepreneurial  Culture  Leadership

Adapted from James-Springer (2016)

The factor “innovation” sets out to examine the relationship between past adoption approaches and the current willingness to adopt e-Learning. It attempts to establish a relationship between an organization’s experience adopting new technologies and its likelihood of adopting e-Learning. This is to say that if previous technological initiatives were adopted, it would be highly likely that e-Learning would be as well. The researchers include a cautionary note indicating that these factors are not necessarily the “ultimate” factors for assessing e-Learning. They are open to the idea of other factors to determine e-Learning readiness. This model closely aligns with the ideas of Rogers (2003) with regard to diffusion of innovation and its relationship to change within the organization. The value of this model lies in the attempt to establish interrelationships and overlaps between and among the factors and constructs. This means that factors are not considered in isolation but include an analysis of the relationship between resources, skills, and attitudes for each factor. Borotis and Poulymenakou (2004) Borotis and Poulymenakou (2004) use seven broad categories in their e-Learning readiness model. Their data is gathered based on a literature review and personal experiences. Their seven categories are business, technology, content, training, culture, finance, and human resources. Like Aydın and Tasci’s (2005) model, this model shows many of the interrelationships between the factors identified:

16

3  Tool Design

• Business readiness refers to the relationship between organizational goals and strategies and their alignment with e-Learning plans. • Technology readiness discusses the infrastructure needed from planning to implementation, including inventory and maintenance and identification of additional support systems for e-Learning. • Content readiness refers to the quality and longevity of e-Learning materials and the potential for reuse. This model makes the assumption that the content has already been decided upon. • Training readiness refers to the overall training operations of the organization. By looking at e-Learning as an additional instructional intervention, it is related directly to the overall training goals. The organization’s readiness to implement successful training will reflect its readiness for e-Learning. • Cultural readiness follows closely with business readiness as it explores the overall climate of the organization’s acceptance of training interventions and technology. It also refers to the willingness of the organization to finance the e-Learning efforts. This is related to the element of financial readiness outlined in this model. • Financial readiness looks at budget constraints. Financial readiness requires a proper model for evaluating return on investment (ROI). • Human resource readiness, though categorized on its own, focuses on two main areas: (1) individuals who can set up and support the system and (2) learner prerequisite skills and knowledge. It further details how support personnel can affect decisions relating to outsourcing of content development; therefore, the possibility of internal development is not considered. The HR component of this model appears to be incomplete. This model is very helpful in identifying the possibilities for readiness categories, and the article gives an excellent explanation and reasoning behind the development of the model. Chapnick (2000) Chapnick (2000) presents a systematic tool for assessing e-Learning, a “holistic system.” It focuses on looking at both the micro- and macro-­objectives related to the organization. The basis for her assessment is hinged on answering three main questions: (1) Can we do this? (2) If we do this, how are we going to do this? (3) What are some of the outcomes, and how are we going to measure them? The model presents a three-pronged approach to the e-Learning needs assessment: • Determine the macro-objectives. • Assessment of target participant population (TPP). • Assessment of system factors. The macro-objectives determine the organizational goals and objectives followed by a comprehensive review of the TPP. This assessment is one of the strengths

Analysis

17

of the model. It includes a holistic review of attitudes, levels of comfort with technology, and of learner access to equipment. The third phase of the model describes the assessment of system factors such as goals and objectives in relation to the system, as well as the factors that could possibly sabotage the implementation of e-Learning. The target areas for this phase comprise: • • • • • •

Content readiness Environment readiness Equipment readiness Technical readiness Financial readiness Human resources readiness

This model has many positives, and the accompanying job aid gives further insight into how the model can be directly translated into a usable tool. It is broad in scope since it aims to have a holistic assessment of the organization which it targets. Its target audience is medium to large organizations with 50+ people employed. Its parameters encompass the learners, the organization in general, and the environment surrounding it. It allows for identification of the possible points of failure within an e-Learning initiative. There are some questionable elements of the model such as the relevance and tone of some of the questions. Under the heading “Psychological Readiness,” the question is asked “Where would you place most of the TPP on Michael Porter/ Geoffrey Moore’s Technology Adoption Curve?” (Chapnick, 2000, p.  16). This question seems out of place since it causes one to wonder who is expected to carry out the survey and the level of technical knowledge needed by the implementer. The content area, while useful, seems more appropriate for an organization that has decided on a specific content or curriculum. It would likely be more suitable when the actual design of the e-Learning intervention becomes clear. The description of the model speaks to the relevant stakeholders including the Human Resource Department. The questions used to explore the factors affecting people or human resources within the organization factors are limited since they focus only on vendors, help desk, and training required for the new system. The model presents several challenges, but it has many elements that are notable as they relate to e-Learning readiness. Chapnick (2000) emphasized readiness from the perspective of the social elements, looking at psychological and interpersonal impacts of e-Learning, the technological elements, including equipment, and organizational elements. Despite some of the gaps within the model, it provided useful insight into the factors which should be considered when thinking of e-Learning readiness. Psycharis (2005) Psycharis (2005) classifies e-Learning readiness factors into three broad headings: resources, education, and environment. Resources means the resources needed by the organization to successfully implement e-Learning. The subheadings include economic readiness, human resources

18

3  Tool Design

readiness, and technological readiness. The components of resources appear disjointed, but further reading shows the various connections between components. Economics, as a resource, is directly related to financing needed for the initiative. Psycharis (2005) urges that e-Learning not be looked at as a way of making or directly saving money, but as a cost-benefit or return on investment (ROI). It is not that the development of e-Learning  itself is inexpensive, but the benefits can go beyond “cash in hand” (p. 3) value. For example, the benefit may be the ability to distribute training in areas that were not accessible before. Under this category, human resources are also included. Human resource readiness refers to the people participating in e-Learning. Human resources comprises three levels: firstly, the learner and learner skills, such as their confidence using computers; secondly, the tutor and his/her reliant knowledge and skill in relation to design and delivery; thirdly, individuals with a general knowledge related to installation, preparation, and maintenance of the system. This is the only model that even considers the skills of tutors. Technology readiness, in this instance, recognizes the relationship between other systems within the organization, employee devices used for access, and reliability in terms of dissemination of educational content. Psycharis (2005) links technological resources with other systems differently from the other models. He ties potential savings to the purchase of systems that are compatible. This is unlike Borotis and Poulymenakou (2004) whose ideas on integration focused on the organization’s track record with planning and implementation of technological tools. Education includes the subheadings of readiness of content and educational readiness. The content subheading is primarily focused on the types and purpose of content. Within this category, there is a further subsection labeled “education” which includes the design of a robust knowledge management system. This involves determining the knowledge and skill of trainees as a baseline and relating this to the needs of the organization. The education heading considers personalized approaches to and the places for storage of metadata. The environment is further broken down into entrepreneurial readiness, leadership readiness, and readiness of culture. Entrepreneurial readiness refers to the way in which e-Learning will fit into the organization’s strategies. As in Chapnick (2000), there is an understanding of the political forces which can influence and serve as obstacles in the implementation of e-Learning. The category “environment” highlights the role of culture, through the acceptance of e-Learning by staff, senior managers, and leaders within the organization. Schein (1986) recognizes that organizational culture represents practices and patterns developed over time to respond to the needs of the organization. When these practices are eventually adopted by the group they become the organization culture. The main highlights of Psycharis’ (2005) model include the influence of culture on adoption, the exploration of several levels of authority within an organization, and the political will to facilitate e-Learning.

Analysis

19

Fig. 3.2  Summary of readiness factors from models

Summary Across Models Despite variations in the four models examined, the findings of this review showed that it was necessary to examine three key areas relevant to e-Learning readiness: organizational readiness, learner readiness, and equipment or technological readiness. The results of this review helped develop the initial categories of the e-Learning readiness tool while highlighted gaps in the initial thinking regarding e-Learning readiness. The review of these models results in a refinement of common areas shown below in Fig. 3.2.

Analysis Two The second phase of analysis was an investigation into some of the questions raised from the first analysis. This stage required an analysis of multidisciplinary literature in order to have a more holistic view of what to include in the tool. Some examples of the multidisciplinary literature reviewed are listed in Table 3.3. This literature represents foundational concepts in many of the areas explored. For example, Senge (1990) is used for understanding and helping to define the ideas related to the learning organization. Knowles (1978) shapes the characteristics of employees as learners. The first analysis generated many q­ uestions, and the second analysis attempts to answer these questions with the goal of embedding these ideas into the creation of the readiness tool. The questions and related bodies of literature are detailed in Chaps. 5, 6, 7, and 8.

Analysis Three The purpose of this analysis was to understand the context in which e-Learning was implemented. Although Richey and Klein (2007) state that the usual methodology for establishing context is to use interviews and administer surveys, in this research, a review of literature was conducted using studies that had documented applications of e-Learning. The methodology used to establish context for the design of the tool is not that of a case study, as suggested in Richey and Klein (2007), but a broad literature review of examples of situations in which e-Learning was implemented. A total of 76 articles and studies that discussed organizations which had implemented

20

3  Tool Design

Table 3.3  Examples literature used in the second phase of analysis (James-Springer, 2016) Topic Learning organization Organizational innovation Human resources and knowledge management Learner characteristics, knowledge, and skills Technology requirements e-Learning readiness tools

Reference Argyris and Schon (1996); Blackler (2002); Garvin et al. (2008); Senge (1990); Rosenberg (2001) Chutivongse and Gerdsi (2020); Ely (1990); Rogers (2003); Nanda and Singh (2009) Ely (1990); Rosenberg (2001) Dabbagh (2007); Guglielmino and Guglielmino (2003a); Knowles (1978); Piskurich (2004) Davis (1989); Delone and McLean (2003); Rosenberg (2001); Rosenberg (2007) Floyd (2003); Haney (2002); Khan (2005)

e-Learning were examined. This information was useful in providing a sense of the various contexts in which e-Learning can be implemented. The aim of this analysis was to use this information to develop a generalizable tool that could be applied across multiple contexts. The three main contextual areas found to be relevant to e-Learning are the (1) organizational environment, (2) human resources and capacity, and (3) technology and practice. These are outlined below and further detailed in Chaps. 5, 6, 7, and 8. Organizational Environment Overall, companies which adopted e-Learning took steps to make e-Learning part of their training plans. e-Learning was an option for instructional solutions but was not necessarily the only solution. Leadership support was found to be a key factor in adopting e-Learning (Annansingh & Bright, 2010; Purnomo & Lee, 2013). Leaders provide supporting roles at all levels within the organization. There were very few studies which addressed the idea of the learning culture directly (Chuang et al., 2008; Proctor & Gamble, 2005). However, good indicators of learning cultures were found in descriptions of learning processes and practices. Wong and Huang (2011) recognize the importance of e-Learning in suporting the growth of a learning organization. A supportive learning environment was found to be reflected in measures used to promote and change attitudes toward learning. Adoption of e-Learning requires a change, a change from what employees are used to for instructional delivery (Nakayama et al., 2005). One key question involves how the initiative is going to be accepted and sustained. Although Nakayama et al. (2005) identify lack of communication as a hindrance to the change process, the review revealed that several of the organizations did not have a clear implementation plan. For example, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), described by Ettinger and Holton (2005), took a less structured approach, and their initiative still progressed successfully. They began with a small project and a few people who were enthusiastic about e-Learning. In this example, the process began with a pilot that allowed the organization to work through preliminary problems before involvement of the wider organization. This justifies the need for the tool as a way of

Analysis

21

conducting an initial assessment as a way to develop an awareness of how the initiative may be accepted and sustained. Human Resources and Capacity Corroborating the finding of the second phase of analysis, human resources were found to be a key to the successful implementation of e-Learning. Waight and Stewart (2005) outline the various levels of staff needed. Proctor and Gamble (2005) describe the need for project management and individuals who would be responsible for design, creation, execution, and evaluation. This level of analysis also helped identify the need to acknowledge that the human resource department is responsible for knowledge management. Knowledge management allows organizations to know what skills exist and what is needed for upgrading learners’ skills. Human resources is also responsible for determining the capacity for implementing e-Learning within the organization; capacity would include the implementers, the existing employees, and determining future need. Thus, the parameters of  “human resources” was expanded to “human resource capacity” based on these observations. Finally, human resources include learners within the organization. Learners are key to e-Learning since they are end users of the system. From the literature, it could be determined that learners drive the e-Learning initiative in several ways: they must be able to access the system, they use the system, and they are the beneficiaries of the system. Before developing e-Learning courses, some organizations gain information about learners’ needs in several ways, such as by conducting preliminary needs assessments (Chuang et al., 2008; Harfoushi et al., 2010). These findings solidified the need for collecting learner information. Technology and Practice The findings of the research proved to be a departure from the initial thinking where infrastructure was the primary focus in the implementation of e-Learning. Several of the articles advised that technology should not be the primary focus, but that technology should be considered within the context, meaning looked at in relation to the objectives of the e-Learning initiative. Since technology directly impacts learners, elements related to usability and quality of the system were important. Bandwidth issues were a challenge for several companies (Admiraal & Lockhorst, 2009; Borotis, 2005; Harfoushi et  al., 2010). For example, Borotis (2005) state that trainees complained of difficulties downloading instructional material containing high multimedia content at their desk. Given that technology cannot totally be divorced from infrastructure, factors such as quality of connectivity and bandwidth can be recognized as relevant to the use of e-Learning. The possibilities for integration of e-Learning into already acquired systems would result in cost savings. Maintenance and integration of e-Learning technology have significant impact on the cost and the ability to sustain an e-Learning system. Using technology that can easily integrate into IT structures that already exist saves cost (Hung et al., 2009). “Technology,” determined as a factor influencing e-Learning readiness in analysis one, was changed to “technology and practice,” since the

22

3  Tool Design

practices and decisions of the IT department in relation to integration and maintenance are likely to have an impact on e-Learning. The Role of Context In the literature analyzed, the distinctiveness of each context stands out. In no category is there total consensus on approaches used and experiences described. In large organizations where there are various specializations, e-Learning cannot be applied in a universal manner (Hung et al., 2009; Raymond et al., 2005). Hung et al. (2009) state that the existence of specialization and functions within the organization influences e-Learning approaches, as needs varied based on the size of the institutions. Hewlett Packard (HP) used different training methodologies centered around employee preferences in geographically dispersed locations (Derouin et al., 2005). Hall (2002) describes levels of implementation; each level is based on the experience of the business with e-Learning. From this, it can be determined that adoption should be regarded on a context-specific basis and not as a one-size-fitsall. Since there was no clear or distinct formula used for adoption of e-Learning in this literature review, these finding supported the need for designing a general tool and helped confirm the findings in analyses one and two. It also helped reinforce the idea that it is possible to create a tool flexible enough to be applied in many contexts.

Design and Development This section describes the decision-making process involved in the design of the tool. An attempt has been made in this description to separate the design and the development processes, but the two phases are heavily dependent on each other. In fact, development was contingent on the decisions made in the design phase. There were several decisions informing the design of the tool. These include: 1. Defining the purpose of the tool 2. Determining the target audience 3. Choosing the structure of the tool, which involves three steps, as outlined in Fig. 3.3: • Theoretical embedding • Exploration of existing interrelationships • Development of a prototype or artifact The design and development of the structure of the tool starts with theoretical embedding. As described by Van den Akker et al. (2012), it involved applying the theoretical findings of the analysis phases to the design and development process. Simply put, the theory informed the decisions made in the practical aspects of the research. This theoretical embedding is followed by decisions on the relationships between parts of the tool and what components should be included. Finally, the prototype or artifact is created.

Evaluation

23

Fig. 3.3  Design and development of the structure of the tool

Since the tool was designed to be a practical tool that can be used by organizations in a systematic and logical way and to serve as a job aide, it was necessary to also facilitate ease of use in collection and collation of data. With an awareness that e-Learning can be implemented in a variety of contexts, the tool needed to be flexible and generalizable enough to meet this need. As a job aide, it is also very important to design a tool that can be applied to real settings. The development process of the tool emphasized: • The multifaceted nature of e-Learning and e-Learning readiness • The need to develop a practical tool that can be easily used and interpreted • Usefulness, not only for new adopters of e-Learning but also for organizations who had already adopted e-Learning but were looking to do a review of their processes • The need to think of skills related to using technology in a broad sense, not only focus exclusively on those associated with specific types of software and computer technology To achieve this goal, the tool was structured to be administered in parts and to culminate in the eventual collation of data. Since it needed to gather various perspectives within the organization, four specific surveys, and associated checklists and recommendations, described in Chap. 4, were designed to facilitated this. The structure of the tool is described in detail in Chap. 4.

Evaluation Ellis and Levy (2010) include testing and evaluation as one of the six phases in their design and development framework. The purpose of testing and evaluation is to establish validity, functionality, and applicability of the artifact in the expected context. Richey and Klein (2007) state that a tool should be designed with practicality

24

3  Tool Design

Fig. 3.4  Formative evaluation processes

and effectiveness in mind. Methods for determining validity include expert reviews and field tests. Formative evaluation was chosen for the purpose of this research and, consistent with Tessmer (1990), included two elements: expert review and field test (see Fig. 3.4). The two main aims for the evaluation of the tool were to determine: • Appropriateness of content for determining e-Learning readiness • Tool effectiveness and practicality The expert review and field test were used to determine construct and content validity of the tool. Both forms of formative assessment helped validate the content, practicability, and usability of the tool. Findings from the formative assessment showed the strengths and weaknesses of the tool. The feedback was used to strengthen the organization and structure of the tool. Although a detailed discussion of the formative evaluation findings is beyond the scope of this book, the suggested changes eventually became a part of the tool described in this book. The process resulted in a tool more streamlined for achieving the expected outcomes through: • Strengthening the questions for each survey so that they are more relevant to the participants • Making the implementation methodology more flexible to suit the organization using it

References Admiraal, W., & Lockhorst, D. (2009). E-Learning in small and medium-sized enterprises across Europe attitudes towards technology, learning and training. International Small Business Journal, 27(6), 743–767. Annansingh, F., & Bright, A. (2010). Exploring barriers to effective e-learning: Case study of DNPA. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 7(1), 55–65.

References

25

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Addison-Wesley. Aydın, C. H., & Tasci, D. (2005). Measuring readiness for e-learning: Reflections from an emerging country. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8(4), 244–257. Blackler, F. (2002). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies, 16(6), 1021–1046. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069501600605 Borotis, S. (2005). Embedding eLearning in Corporate Training: Lessons from a Case Study. In Web-Based Education: Proceedings of the Fourth IASTED International Conference(WBE-2005). IASTED. Borotis, S., & Poulymenakou, A. (2004). E-learning readiness components: Key issues to consider before adopting e-learning interventions. In S. Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of E-learn 2005: World conference on E-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (pp. 1622–1629). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Chapnick, S. (2000). Needs assessment for E-learning. ASTD. Chuang, C.-K., Chang, M., Wang, C.-Y., Chung, W.-C., & Chen, G.-D. (2008). Application of E-learning to pilot training at trans Asia Airways in Taiwan. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(1), 23–39. Chutivongse, N., & Gerdsi, N. (2020). Creating an innovative organization analytical approach to develop a strategic road map guiding organizational development. Journal of Modelling in Management, 15(1), 50–87. Dabbagh, N. (2007). The online learner: Characteristics and pedagogical implications. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(3), 217–226. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9–30. Derouin, R.  E., Fritzsche, B.  A., & Salas, E. (2005). E-learning in organizations. Journal of Management, 31(6), 920–940. Ellis, T. J., & Levy, Y. (2010). A guide for novice researchers: Design and development research methods. In E.  Cohen (Ed.), Proceedings of informing science & IT education conference, InSITE (pp. 108–118). Informaing Science Institute (ISI) Ely, D. P. (1990). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(2), 298–305. https://doi.org/10.108 0/08886504.1990.10781963 Ettinger, A., & Holton, V. (2005). E-learning lessons from the sharp end: The BBC. Training & Management Development Methods, 19(2), 6.07–06.12. Floyd, T. (2003). Analyzing the organization’s need for e-learning. In G.  M. Piskurich (Ed.), Preparing learners for e-learning (pp.  37–70). American Management Association International. Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 109. Guglielmino, P.  J., & Guglielmino, L.  M. (2003b). Are your learners ready for e-learning? In G.  M. Piskurich (Ed.), The AMA handbook of e-learning: Effective design, implementation, and technology solutions (pp. 87–98). Hall, B. (2002). Six steps to developing a successful e-learning initiative: Excerpts from the e-learning guidebook. In The ASTD E-learning handbook: Best practices, strategies, and case studies for an emerging field. McGraw-Hill. Haney, B.  D. (2002). Assessing organizational readiness for E-learning: 70 questions to ask. Performance Improvement, 41(4), 10–15. Harfoushi, O. K., Obiedat, R. F., & Khasawneh, S. S. (2010). E-learning adoption inside Jordanian organizations from change management perspective. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 5(2), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v5i2.1260 Hung, S.-Y., Chen, C. C., & Lee, W.-J. (2009). Moving hospitals toward e-learning adoption: An empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 22(3), 239–256.

26

3  Tool Design

James-Springer, C. (2016). Building a tool for determining e-learning readiness of organizations: A design and development study (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from https://vtechworks. lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/70912/JamesSpringer_CD_D_2016.pdf;sequence=2 Khan, B.  H. (2005). Managing e-learning: Design, delivery, implementation, and evaluation. Information Science Publishing. Knowles, M. (1978). The adult learner: A neglected species (2nd ed.). Gulf Publishing Company. Nakayama, M., Proano, R., Pilla, B., & Silveira, R. (2005). The impact of the implementation of distance education systems in a telecommunications company. In P. Nicholson, M. Ruohonen, J.  B. Thompson, & J.  Multisilta (Eds.), E-training practices for professional organizations (pp. 163–170). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-­387-­23572-­8_20 Nanda, T., & Singh, T.  P. (2009). Determinants of creativity and innovation in the workplace: A comprehensive review. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 9(1), 84–106. Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Chen, M., & Purdin, T. D. (1990). Systems development in information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(3), 89–106. Piskurich, G. M. (2004). Preparing learners for e-learning. John Wiley & Sons. Proctor, & Gamble. (2005). Planning, implementing, & evaluating e-learning initiatives: Proctor & Gamble case study. American Productivity & Quality Center. Psycharis, S. (2005). Presumptions and action affecting an e-learning adoption by the educational system. Implementation using virtual private networks. European Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 2, 1–10. Purnomo, S., & Lee, Y. H. (2013). E-learning adoption in the banking workplace in indonesia: An empirical study. Information Development, 29(2), 138–153. https://doi. org/10.1177/0266666912448258 Raymond, L., Bergeron, F., & Blili, S. (2005). The assimilation of e-business in manufacturing SMEs: Determinants and effects on growth and internationalization. Electronic Markets, 15(2), 106–118. Richey, R. (1986). The theoretical and conceptual basis of instructional design. Nichols. Richey, R., & Klein, J.  D. (2007). Design and development research: Methods, strategies, and issues. Routledge. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Rosenberg, M.  J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. McGraw-Hill. Rosenberg, M. J. (2007). Beyond e-learning. Pfeiffer. Schein, E. H. (1986). What you need to know about organizational culture. Training & Development Journal, 40(1), 30–33. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. The art & practice of learning organization. Doubleday Currency. Tessmer, M. (1990). Environment analysis: A neglected stage of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 55–64. Van den Akker, J., Branch, R.  M., Gustafson, K., Nieveen, N., & Plomp, T. (2012). Design approaches and tools in education and training. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated. Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K. L. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 69–89. Waight, C. L., & Stewart, B. L. (2005). Valuing the adult learner in E-learning: Part one—A conceptual model for corporate settings. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(5), 337–345. Wong, W. T., & Huang, N. T. N. (2011). The effects of e-learning system service quality and users’ acceptance on organizational learning. International Journal of Business and Information, 6(2), 205.

Chapter 4

Structure of the Tool

Introduction In this new era, technology has become an integral part of organizations. It facilitates work in all aspects of business, and in this current environment, alternatives may be compromised for the foreseeable future. The chapter begins with a discussion of e-Learning as systemic change (Reigeluth, 1992). It then outlines the structure of the tool with brief descriptions of its parts.

e-Learning Adoption as a System A systems perspective on implementation recommends assessing the conditions for e-Learning (Vemuri & Bellinger, 2017) which will in turn reveal any gaps that exist within the organization, assist with implementation, and inform the training design processes and methods. A system view facilitates a holistic perspective which helps identify interrelationships, internal processes, threats, and influences on the system. Though this book describes e-Learning readiness in a linear manner by presenting each aspect of e-Learning readiness individually, the interrelationships between each aspect of e-Learning readiness affect the entire organization. Systemic change recognizes that a change in one part of the system requires changes in all parts of the system for change to be successful (Reigeluth, 1992). Thinking of implementing e-Learning from a systemic perspective shows an understanding of the relationships that exist between each part of the organization and the need to consider interrelated parts of the organization when implementing e-Learning. Parlakkiliç (2017) recognizes e-Learning as a dynamism within organizations that influences change. The various perspectives on e-Learning readiness described in Chap. 3 have already established that there are many influences on e-Learning adoption, many of © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. James-Springer, K. Cennamo, A Tool for Determining e-Learning Readiness, SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76994-9_4

27

28

4  Structure of the Tool

Fig. 4.1 e-Learning organizational system

Support Systems Organizational Environment

Human Resource and Capacity

Technology and Practice

Learner Needs

Content

which are interrelated. The influences can be further classified into three broad areas: support systems, learners, and eventually the content designed for training. Support systems is the broadest category and influences the experience of learners and the type of content which is to be developed. Organizational environment, human resources and capacity, and technology and practice represent the foundational needs that, if in place, would help in successful implementation of e-Learning. The three categories of organizational environment, human resources and capacity, and technology and practice were foundational concepts established from the analysis phases of the tool development, described in Chap. 3. They serve as support systems. Although each of these systems could also represent barriers to successful implementation, in the context of this research, these are viewed as support systems as the objective of the tool is to establish what support systems exist within each of these categories and the changes that the organization may need to make within these systems to support or enable the growth of e-Learning. As indicated in Fig. 4.1, each of the support systems impacts the learners and their understanding of their place within the organization, and learner needs would influence the instructional intervention in terms of the design of content and learning experiences. Figure 4.1 summarizes the relationships among these important areas which should be considered when considering implementing e-Learning in organizations. The specific factors to be considered within each of the support systems are outlined in Table 4.1. The e-Learning readiness tool attempts to explore as many aspects of the organization as possible, as the data gathered eventually influences the decisions which matter in adopting e-Learning.

Tool Structure The tool was designed to be a practical tool that can be used by organizations in a systematic and logical way. It was necessary also to facilitate ease of use in collection and collation of data. To achieve this goal, the tool was structured to be

29

Tool Structure Table 4.1  Areas within support systems Support systems Organizational environment

Human resources and capacity

Technology and practice

Related factors Organizational goals Leadership support Learning culture Innovation adoption Finance Coordination of training Organizational capacity Learners within the organization Access Maintenance Integration

Fig. 4.2  Outline of the tool

administered in parts. It is made up of four surveys which provide an opportunity to explore the opinions from various perspectives within the organization, something which was lacking in prior models of e-Learning readiness. Fortuitously, the tool can also be used for diagnosis of the problem in conditions where there may be no alternative to e-Learning, yet the e-Learning process being used is unsuccessful. As illustrated in Fig.  4.2, the tool is divided into two main parts: the surveys (A–D) and the final checklist and recommendations (E).

30

4  Structure of the Tool

Part 1: The Surveys The purpose of the surveys is to collect information from various perspectives within an organization to make a judgment on the readiness of the organization to adopt e-Learning as a means of instructional delivery. The structure aims to simplify collection of data and collate this data into an easy-to-use format. The surveys represent data to be collected with regard to the support systems and resources available within the organization, namely, Survey A, the organizational environment; B, human resources and capacity; and C, technology and practice. Survey D represents the perspective of the learners or the expected end users of the system. Each survey targets different participants within the organization in order to get a complete picture in relation to e-Learning readiness. • Survey A, organizational environment, targets leaders within organizations. Leaders hold the power to change things within organizations, and so their perspective is relevant in determining whether the changes needed to implement e-Learning are likely to be facilitated. • Survey B, human resource and capacity, targets individuals responsible for human resources. Since e-Learning is a tool that facilitates instructional interventions in learning, the perspective of these individuals is important for determining the human resource capacity of the organization. • Survey C, technology and practice, targets individuals involved in providing information technology support to the organization. It is assumed that these individuals would understand how information technology is used within the organization. • Survey D, learner readiness, directly targets the employees within the organization who are users of the system. The Surveys: Major Headings  Each survey includes several headings, but as illustrated in Table 4.2, all headings may not appear on all the surveys. The heading used is relevant to the survey in which it appears. Organizational Goals  The purpose of this section is to determine the presence of a strategic direction in the organization. Organizational goals and the mission and vision of an organization show whether there is a strategic plan or direction within the organization. All the surveys ask questions in relation to the organizational goals to get a sense of whether there is a goal or strategic direction established for the organization, as well as where these individuals see themselves and their jobs in relation to achieving these goals and objectives. The questions related to this, in all the surveys, are aimed at gaining some insight into the awareness of participants of their place within the organizational plans. Leadership Support  The purpose of this section is to determine the role of leaders within the organization. Leadership support has been found to be crucial to the suc-

Tool Structure

31

Table 4.2  Headings, purpose, and the surveys on which they appear in the tool Major headings Organizational goals Leadership support Learning culture

Purpose Determine the presence of a strategic direction in the organization Determine the role of leaders within the organization Determine whether individuals have a personal learning philosophy Determine organization’s perspective on learning and how it is facilitated Finance Determine who will finance e-Learning Determine who holds the power within the organization Human resources Determine the capacity within the organization to support e-Learning Determine how information on employees is managed Technological tools Determine the existing infrastructure Determine attitudes of the department to assisting with e-Learning Determine general practice with respect to computer technology Learner readiness Determine attitudes toward technology Determine access to e-Learning Determine experiences using technology Willingness to use e-Learning

Survey A B C D √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

√

√

cess of initiatives, generally, within organizations and, particularly, for e-Learning. Because of the unique roles of leaders, a section is dedicated to collecting information from and about them. This also appears on all the surveys. The main purpose is to corroborate the information collected in the leadership survey as well as to gain the perspectives of the different groups regarding this. Leaders play a major role in laying the foundation for the learning culture because of their positions of power within the organization and at various levels. Their responses could determine whether the strategic goals are achieved. Depending on their level within the organization, leaders are also responsible for setting the strategic goals. Learning Culture  The purpose of this section is to collect information on the two elements of learning culture: whether individuals have a personal learning philosophy and the perspective of the organization, as a whole, on learning and how it is facilitated. An individual’s personal learning culture refers to an individual’s philosophy of learning in terms of how they see themselves and the goals they set for themselves. Personal learning culture appears in Surveys A, C, and D. The second element of learning culture is the organizational learning culture which relates directly to the environment that is created within the organization with regard to learning. Questions related to this element appear on Surveys A, B, C, and D. Both perspectives are important. A personal learning culture may determine whether an individual is willing to take up opportunities presented by the organization. The

32

4  Structure of the Tool

organizational learning culture determines whether opportunities are being created within the organization for learning. The learning culture also is related to the willingness of both the individual and the organization to adopt innovations and new initiatives. Attitudes related to adoption of new initiatives may give a clue to how e-Learning may be taken up within the organization. This section in the surveys also examines the environment created by leaders encouraging opportunities to learn and the presence of incentive systems within the organization. Finance  This section in the surveys seeks to find which departments are responsible for spending related to e-Learning. It also explores who has the power to make decisions related to spending regarding training/e-Learning. Financial decisions can occur on many levels: a fully centralized model where all the financial decisions are made at the top levels within the organization or a model where departments take responsibility for some of their spending. Questions related to this element appear on A, B, C, and D. Human Resources  The purpose of this section is to determine the capacity within the organization to support e-Learning and how information on employees is managed. This area is extremely important as it determines the capacity of the organization by gathering information related to the processes used to determine the skills and knowledge within the organization, the skills that exist regarding adopting and sustaining e-Learning, and the power that the human resource department has in relation to financial decisions that will affect e-Learning. This area is key as this department may be responsible for planning and driving key learning initiatives that are in line with achieving the strategic direction of the organization. This appears in all surveys. Technological Tools  The purpose of this section is to determine the existing infrastructure, attitudes of the IT department to assisting with e-Learning, and general practices with respect to computer technology. This area is widely seen as the core of establishing e-Learning since e-Learning, by definition, utilizes computer technology for the delivery of instruction. The parameters for technology in e-Learning go well beyond the infrastructure, that is, the hardware and software, but also include understanding the access to e-Learning through individual devices and facilitated access. Thinking of technology may also determine whether the system will be utilized by learners. This can only be assessed through determining attitudes toward technology and the ways in which use is encouraged. Additionally, use is also heavily influenced by the usability and reliability of the system. This heading appears in Survey C. Question Structure  For simplicity and flexibility, some questions in the surveys have a yes/no option to make it easier to collate and evaluate the data for the final checklist. These questions also allow for flexibility when surveys are administered. For example, in an online survey, it would be easier to check yes/no rather than compose an answer.

Tool Structure

33

Part 2: Final Checklist, Including Recommendations The final checklist, Table E in Appendix A, was developed as a way of capturing the information from the four surveys and translating the information into a format that is useful for the users of the tool within the organization. The surveys gather information from different people in four different areas throughout the organization. The purpose of the checklist and recommendations is so that anyone using the surveys can easily collate the information into an easy-to-use format for reporting. The categories within the checklists are aligned with Surveys A–D, and the checklists have been designed in such a way to ease the amount of information which gets to the decision-making level within the organization. Table E, the final checklist, collates the data and provides an overview of the results and associated recommendations. The suggested recommendations included as part of the tool are based on research and best practice in organizations that have implemented e-Learning. The recommendations vary based on the findings and may also differ based on the context in which the tool is applied. Detailed recommendations and literature sources are also included in Appendix A. Table E is very similar in structure to Surveys A–D. It incorporates similar categories to the surveys. This was deliberate since the objective was for information from the surveys to be distilled down to manageable and easy-to-report and easy-to-­ use information. The final checklist with recommendations is divided into three parts: • E1 – organizational environment • E2 – human resources and capacity • E3 – technology and practice E1  – Organizational Environment  This checklist captures and summarizes the data related to the organizational goals, the role of leaders within the organization, the overall learning culture within the organization, and financial elements as they relate to creating and laying the foundation for establishing e-Learning. E2 – Human Resource and Capacity  This checklist captures information related to the processes used for maintaining a database for the skills and knowledge of employees, keeping track of what is offered and who has taken part, and how this is related to achieving the goals of the organization. This area also summarizes that crucial question of whether the skills for maintaining e-Learning are already present in-house or whether they should be brought in or outsourced. E3 – Technology and Practice  This checklist collates the information related to determining whether users will be able to access e-Learning resources or are willing to use the system. It points to the ability to maintain the system through constant maintenance as well as how decisions such as integration can affect the initiative. A complete description of how to use the tool, and associated checklists, is described in Chap. 9. But first, Chaps. 5, 6, 7, and 8 describe the rationale behind the development of each survey and the questions included on each one.

34

4  Structure of the Tool

References Parlakkiliç, A. (2017). Change management in transition to e-learning system. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 3(3), 637–651. Reigeluth, C. (1992). The imperative for systemic change. Educational Technology, 32(11), 9–13. Retrieved February 26, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44425484 Vemuri, P., & Bellinger, G. (2017). Examining the use of systemic approach for adoption of ­systems thinking in organizations. Systems, 5(3), 43.

Chapter 5

Organizational Environment Readiness

The Organizational Environment The organizational environment represents the ecosystem in which e-Learning is to function. “Ecosystem” refers to the concept of a complex network made up of individual parts that are networked and interconnected (Bogers et al., 2019). The learning environment includes not only the instructional aspects of e-Learning but all the supporting structures which will help establish a robust e-Learning system, since the learning environment would include all the connecting parts of the system that help create an atmosphere in which e-Learning can effectively be adopted. Thus, the organizational environment is important because it reflects the organization’s commitment to achieving its strategic goals and the processes needed to move the initiative forward. Organizational environment readiness involves a consideration of organizational goals, leadership support, organizational learning culture, and finances. This chapter elaborates on each of these areas and closes with a description of the associated survey.

Organizational Goals How important are organizational goals for establishing e-Learning? The vision and mission of an organization gives an indication of the future an organization envisions, where it wants to arrive, as well as what is being done now. Mission statements have several functions including helping set the strategic direction, assisting with goal setting, and providing a platform for setting lower-level objectives (Ekpe et al., 2015). The established strategic direction can guide the direction of the organization and lay the foundation for employee expectations and their roles within the © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. James-Springer, K. Cennamo, A Tool for Determining e-Learning Readiness, SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76994-9_5

35

36

5  Organizational Environment Readiness

organization. It demystifies the part that employees play in the overall success of the organization. There is almost a linear relationship between the strategic direction, the employee role, and the types of training implemented. Training is premised on the types of knowledge and skills needed to move the organization’s business objectives and strategies forward (Milhem et al., 2014). For our purposes, training is looked at as any instructional intervention aimed at improving performance. Training or performance goals should show alignment with mission goals (Dai & Duserick, 2007; Milhem et al., 2014). This includes e-Learning. Training is found to be more effective if it meets employee expectation and they can see the relevance to their job (Khan et al., 2018). Instructional solutions aimed at improving performance should be based on concrete goals which are measurable, through opportunities provided during an employee’s day-to-day activities. Figure 5.1 illustrates the systematic relationship between performance interventions and the wider goals of the organization. Figure 5.1 shows that it is important for organizations to develop a vision and mission statement which would assist in establishing a clear strategic direction for the organization. Training should be directly linked to driving the vision and mission forward. The e-Learning interventions directly link to training goals. This would in turn be tied to the employees’ personal and professional goals. The establishment of this clear strategic direction also allows for easier evaluations and determining whether the training goals have been achieved. e-Learning interventions should be directly linked to facilitating improved knowledge or a skill which links directly to improved job performance and, by extension, moving the vision for the organization forward. It means that any e-Learning initiative should be aligned with the mission and vision in mind.

Fig. 5.1  Relationship between organizational goals and performance interventions

The Organizational Environment

37

Leadership and Management Support How can leaders within organizations help with e-Learning adoption? Leaders within organizations can play varying roles in encouraging training initiatives, particularly those involving e-Learning. Their roles include being champions of the initiative and using their positions of power to influence the implementation of e-Learning. Because of their positions within organizations, they can support the growth of the initiative or hinder its progress. In many organizations there are various tiers of leaders, from CEOs to middle managers. Depending on the management level, they may have varying levels of authority and decision-making powers. While e-Learning champions can come from any level within an organization, leaders have a fundamental role to play as champions because of the additional influence and power that they hold. To be a champion for e-Learning initiatives means exhibiting several traits. These are having a good attitude toward the system, being a user of the system, and having a first-hand understanding of the system and its challenges. Champions encourage employees to use the system by demonstrating the value of e-Learning through positive attitudes. This point relates to the need for everyone within the organization to understand the goals of the initiative and how they are tied into the growth and strategic direction of the organization. Managers need to be committed to encouraging employees to use the system. They need to have good communication skills and knowledge and competence about the e-Learning system. Leaders as champions can serve as first adopters which are very important for “selling” e-Learning and successful implementation. Their experiences with the system help them to understand realistically the challenges faced by the employees and to acquire the technological skills needed to navigate the system. Borotis et al. (2005) state that managers who had not used e-Learning did not appreciate the knowledge and skills acquired by their charges because they themselves lacked training. Apart from gaining the skill required to use e-Learning, leaders can become advocates and champions for the system. Leaders need to motivate workers to use the system. Management support is imperative and can positively influence motivation or cause barriers (Steenekamp et al., 2012), and motivation can be influenced by the attitude of leaders. Leaders hold positions of power. Their power not only relates to their attitudes but also includes the ability to determine the financial allocations to training and implementation of necessary policies. Therefore, gaining management support must be deliberate and systematic. Leaders within organizations also are the ones able to create the avenues for employees to use the new knowledge and skills gained in training. Employees can largely be considered adult learners and as such need to see the value of what they need to learn (Knowles, 1978). Leaders should be able to create opportunities for application of new skills and knowledge within the workplace context. Leaders are in the position to encourage and provide opportunities after training to facilitate the transfer of learning by application on the job. For example, if an individual works in a water system as an operator fixing the

38

5  Organizational Environment Readiness

distribution network and training is conducted on implementing a new standard for fixing pipes within the system, supervisors should give the operator opportunities to implement the new standards. Generally, leaders can serve many positive roles in any e-Learning initiative. They set the pace and atmosphere for learning within the organization and should be part of determining whether an organization is ready for e-Learning.

Learning Culture and the Learning Organization Can an organization learn? Or does knowledge and learning rest exclusively in individuals within an organization? The answers to these questions lie in trying to differentiate between organizational learning and learning organization. Argyris and Schon (1996) describe organizational learning as an individual’s inquiry into a problem on the organization’s behalf. The solution must eventually become part of the organizational artifacts in order for it to become organizational learning. Newer definitions of organizational learning have slanted toward the idea that knowledge is social, following on ideas related to situated learning and communities of practice (Brown et  al., 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991), rather than exclusively individual. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) acknowledged that new knowledge begins with the individual. Through sharing and dialogue or discussion with team members, that individual knowledge becomes organizational knowledge. Knowledge generation can have several avenues, since organizations provide opportunities for generation of knowledge through interaction between people, established routines, and symbols (Blackler, 2002). This can only occur if the organization provides processes to encourage sharing of experiences and memories. These experiences eventually become part of the structures and strategies within the organization, the culture of the organization. The movement of knowledge from individual to organization can be advantageous since shared experiences ensure that knowledge remains even after employees have left. Therefore, for our discussion, organizational learning begins with the learner experiences and becomes organizational knowledge through shared experiences. The learning organization represents the processes that facilitate this sharing. How does the learning culture or environment support e-Learning? van Breda-­ Verduijn and Heijboer (2016), using Schein’s (1985) model of culture as a guide, suggest that a learning culture within an organization can be demonstrated by external symbols, organizational values, and individual beliefs. An organization which values learning would provide both informal and formal opportunities for learning. Examples of this would be through organized sharing of best practice, such as webinars and lunchtime gatherings, presented and attended by employees. Depending on current conditions, these may also have to be carried out using technology. These types of activities reinforce the value of learning. The learning culture is embedded in using learning strategies that directly relate to the business strategies along with organizational values that clearly demonstrate the importance of learning within the

The Organizational Environment

39

organization. The learning culture can therefore be referred to as the environment which is created to facilitate learning through demonstrated processes, procedures, and value systems. The culture of learning is related to the ideas about a learning organization. The learning organization was widely conceptualized by Senge (1990), and he proposes an organization in which free thinking is encouraged and continuous learning is enabled in a collective format. The learning organization facilitates this type of creativity and learning through systems thinking, personal mastery, use of mental models, shared vision, and team building. The idea and processes expected for the learning organization from Senge’s description appear to be idealistic and almost untenable, but Garvin et  al. (2008) propose simplifying the concepts into three building blocks which are as follows: a supportive learning environment; concrete learning processes and practices; and leadership that reinforces learning. Their simplified building blocks make the idea of a learning organization easier to understand and apply and can help guide the creation of processes which can help achieve the idea of a learning organization. Therefore, while the learning culture within an organization creates the environment to achieve learning, the learning organization represents the product that emerges from the processes and procedures created. e-Learning systems are microcosms of broader organization learning initiatives, and therefore consideration must be given to additional requirements and stresses created by choosing e-Learning. A culture of learning utilizing e-Learning must be related to using technology in the organization. How can e-Learning be integrated into the everyday activities of the organization? How can e-Learning be an advantage in the process of creating a learning organization? These are some of the questions that need to be answered to ensure that the learning culture within the organization is conducive to acceptance of e-Learning. The incorporation of ideas related to the learning organization in e-Learning adoption encourages the value of learning while incorporating e-Learning in a systematic and deliberate way. Serrat (2017) views the use of information communications technology (ICT) as an enhancement to the learning organization. One of its advantages is that ICT tools build learning communities by facilitating sharing and communication. The shift to online activities during COVID-19 has emphasized the power of e-Learning technologies in facilitating these kinds of activities. The Innovative Organization  What is an innovative organization and what is its relationship to e-Learning? According to the OECD definition, innovation encompasses not only implementation of new products but services and processes which help in improvement of practices within organizations and workplaces. Innovation is closely reliant on cultural changes within organizations (Park et al., 2014). The innovative culture and practice filter into employee behavior resulting in new ideas and initiatives which eventually lead to the development of better products and processes. Therefore, innovative organizations tend to adopt or take advantage of something new which leads to more efficient products or processes. In the context of e-Learning, depending on how well the intervention is designed, it can lead to something new through improvement of products or process.

40

5  Organizational Environment Readiness

Initial application of e-Learning began with desktop computers, but now learning can be facilitated using a variety of devices, including cellphones, in places never anticipated. e-Learning introduces flexibility, access to new content, and new ways of delivering instruction that can help improve employee’s skills and efficiency. Technology in instruction has revolutionized the way training is conducted. Now we see the value of technology-mediated instruction and communication where individuals use various types of devices to work and learn. e-Learning, like many technological tools in education, has been hailed as a technological innovation that will change the teaching and learning experience. e-Learning has brought about changes and continues to evolve enough to remain a novel approach to instructional delivery. Indeed, e-Learning became necessary more than ever with the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic. This ever-changing characteristic of e-Learning means that organizations need to constantly update their training approaches using e-Learning. New technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR), and simulations are now influencing e-Learning delivery. These types of changes mean that the parameters of e-Learning readiness will continuously evolve as well. The advantages of e-Learning continue to be flexibility, accessibility, and competitiveness. e-Learning affords organizations with flexibility in scheduling times as well as in the types of content to be developed. This is particularly relevant for companies with many physical and geographic locations. These companies must consider variations in time zones and language and cultural differences. e-Learning allows for incorporation of components such as variations in languages and time zones while maintaining standardized content. Flexibility and accessibility are related since e-Learning can allow users to access content anytime, anyplace. Once users have the necessary software and hardware, they may be able to learn at their convenience. Training in general is aimed at keeping companies up to date and competitive. e-Learning presents the capability of real-time, quick updates of training. The ultimate advantage of these e-Learning characteristics is to generate new products and services. Depending on the organization, the underlying advantage is the development of new processes and procedures regarding instructional interventions. As an organization begins to contemplate using e-Learning, the prospect of change becomes relevant. Innovation is inevitably linked to change. Rogers (2003) outlines the relationship between structural characteristics of an organization and innovativeness. He recognizes that there are several variables within an organization that may affect innovation adoption. These are individual leader characteristics, organizational structure, and external characteristics of an organization or the level of openness. Davies and Buisine (2018) identify several elements which influence an innovative culture, and most relate to the innovativeness of people and collaborators. The innovativeness of leaders and individuals within the organization helps fuel innovativeness of the organization. There are many variables which may affect an organization’s willingness to change. Rogers (2003) indicates that the influence of variables such as complexity, centralization, and formalization may affect an organization’s ability to change at

The Organizational Environment

41

various stages in the change process. For example, low centralization, high complexity, and low formalization help start the innovation process but may be a hindrance in the implementation stages. Rogers (2003) recognizes that there is a progression to innovation adoption. The progression begins with the innovation being assimilated and contextualized until it becomes a part of the routines and practices of the organization. Adoption requires a clear implementation plan based on an understanding of the conditions which exist and the decisions which follow in relation to making the innovation part of the organization until it becomes part of the culture. When implementing e-Learning it is therefore necessary to consider the stages needed for it to become accepted, influenced by the expectations of the role it will play in changing the organization. If we consider e-Learning a technological innovation, it would be useful to review Ely’s (1990) eight conditions for implementing technological change (see Table  5.1). Although Ely’s (1990) research was concerned primarily with higher education, several of the concepts may be applicable to organizational settings. It may be valuable to adapt, or at least consider, some of the features of Ely’s conditions as factors in e-Learning implementation. These conditions are useful in considering possible barriers to implementation, and they align well with the previous literature describing the characteristics and conditions needed to successfully implement e-Learning. These alignments are outlined in Table 5.1.

Finance Why are financing decisions important for implementing e-Learning? Finance lies at the center of organizational operations. How an organization is going to allocate its resources determines which initiatives will move forward and which will not. The major considerations when financing e-Learning include: • • • •

Cost saving compared to the face-to-face alternative. The willingness of managers to put finances into the initiative. The value of e-Learning as a component of a wider training initiative. The supporting elements needed when costing e-Learning.

Calculation of benefits in e-Learning must include two perspectives: the return on investment (ROI) and the return on expectations (ROE), the “hard” and “soft” benefits, respectively (Deeny, 2003). ROI represents processes that can be easily calculated such as explicit costs like reduction in hotel costs and instructor time. ROE is harder to calculate since it involves trying to determine transfer of knowledge and how it has improved skills such as customer service, the “softer” benefits of e-Learning. Measuring the value of training is generally difficult since the results of training are not always obvious or tangible. Additional difficulties in costing e-Learning include quantifying e-Learning by differentiating between capital expenses and actual e-Learning expenses. This is particularly difficult to calculate if the e-Learning unit is integrated with the overall business. IBM (2005) acknowledges that despite evaluation plans, it is difficult to

42

5  Organizational Environment Readiness

Table 5.1  Eight conditions of technology implementation applied to e-Learning Condition 1. Dissatisfaction with the status quo

Definition of meaning (Ely, 1990) Dissatisfaction with the current conditions

2. Knowledge and skills exist

People involved in the implementation have the necessary skill to implement and foster the change 3. Resources are Resources needed for innovation available must be easily accessible (focus mainly on hardware and software) – Refers mainly to physical resources 4. Time is available Time is necessary to “learn, adapt, integrate, and reflect on what they are doing” – Only refers to the implementers Incentives for change 5. Rewards or incentives exist for participants Shared decision-making and 6. Participation is communication between the people expected and who the change is going to affect encouraged

7. Commitment by those involved 8. Leadership is evident

Commitment to the innovation occurs at all levels There are two levels of leadership. The executive officer of the organization and the project leader

Possible application to organizations/e-Learning e-Learning is adopted out of the need to remain competitive and may require changing the norms within the organization People involved in e-Learning must have the necessary knowledge and skills to accommodate adoption Both physical and human resources should be available for e-Learning

People involved in e-Learning must be given time to understand how e-Learning works and how it affects the organization Incentives for changing must be present Implementation should include different departments to keep people informed. This results in harmonized integrated decision-making Commitment can be financial or participatory support Leadership support is evident

Adapted from James-Springer (2016)

relate learning results with business results. Methods used for costing e-Learning vary significantly. Generally, e-Learning falls under general training budgets in many organizations; this can be seen in the 2013 and 2018 State of the Industry reports (Miller, 2013; ATD Research, 2018). One of the main hindrances to e-Learning adoption in small businesses is the limitation of budget for investment in infrastructure (Admiraal & Lockhorst, 2009). Infrastructure includes both hardware and software. If training is to take place at the workplace, expenses may  include hardware, such as additional computers designated for e-Learning, and upgrading the network to undertake e-Learning. This is especially true if there is initial investment in a learning management system (LMS). Additional, but often overlooked, is the cost associated with repair and maintenance of equipment (Sharma, 2011). There are many vendors for e-Learning, and this may pose challenges for integration with existing infrastructure. Will an LMS be

The Organizational Environment

43

compatible with the already existing technology used within the organization? It may need to integrate with HR systems and work on the existing infrastructure. If the systems are not compatible, additional costs may be incurred to customize them (Rosenberg, 2001). Equipment costs can be distributed across more than one training program (Sharma, 2011). One pertinent question is how the infrastructural expenses associated with e-Learning will be separated from other computer-related expenses. As with expenses related to training generally, it is difficult to disaggregate expenses allocated exclusively to e-Learning personnel. e-Learning requires dedicated staff both in the implementation and the adoption phases. Staffing decisions are based on whether development is going to be done in-house or externally. Internal development would require the services of the design and delivery personnel and support staff but facilitate more customized products. If the necessary skills are not available in-house, then hiring of new staff produces an additional expenditure. Consultancy expenses may be beneficial by avoiding errors associated with novices. All projects incur administrative costs. Administrative expenses may vary depending on the scope and time period of the e-Learning project. Sharma (2011) states that, often in higher education projects, there is underestimation of the number of people involved in the project and of whether the cost changes depending on the scope of the project. Expense decisions require weighing the costs and benefits. Learning support requires policies and incentives (Khan, 2005) in support of e-Learning by its nature. One of the necessities for change is open communication, dissemination of information, and marketing of offerings (Welsh et  al., 2003). Employees need to know what is being offered before they can use it. While the need for internal motivation of adult learners is recognized, several types of incentives on the part of the organization may also be needed as a motivator. Moshinskie (2003) suggests including rewards, both monetary and non-monetary. Examples include increased pay, time off with pay, improved work conditions, promotions, and certification. Other incentives may be in the form  initiatives paid for by the organization and time to access e-Learning. These issues need to be considered as part of the costs of an initiative as these support systems may require some policy changes. Measuring and assessing the impact of e-Learning is even more difficult when using terms such as effectiveness and success which are ill-defined. Fayyoumi and Monteroni (2009) state that the e-Learning effectiveness measures should be defined and linked to objectives. Galloway (2005) states that effectiveness must be evaluated at the individual and organizational level. An assessment and evaluation plan would help determine whether, financially, e-Learning is meeting expectations or goals. The Kirkpatrick/Phillips model (Kirkpatrick, 2005; Phillips, 1997) is an example of a model which is used to determine effectiveness of training and can be applied to e-Learning, though it may pose some challenges (Galloway, 2005). The Kirkpatrick/Phillips model (Kirkpatrick, 2005; Phillips, 1997) involves five levels of data collection:

44

5  Organizational Environment Readiness

• Level 1– Reaction: This level measures participants’ immediate reaction to training. The reaction is usually evaluated immediately after the training exercise. • Level 2  – Learning: This level tries to determine learning through changes in knowledge or skills. This can be done using tests, for example, simulations or pre- and posttests. • Level 3 – Behavior: This level evaluates transfer of knowledge, which is shown by the ways in which employees apply new knowledge and skills to the job. This is evaluated using methods such as interviews and observation, after employees have returned to their jobs. • Level 4 – Results: This level evaluates overall business impact of the training; it looks at the impact of training on costs, quality, output, and time. • Level 5  – Return on investment (ROI): This level makes a comparison of the monetary benefits of the training program when compared to the costs of running the program. This level was added by Phillips (2003) as a cost-benefit ratio. Ozturan and Kutlu (2010) state that it is difficult to apply level five ROI in the Kirkpatrick/ Phillips model because it is hard to isolate factors related to e-Learning. Miller (2013) suggests that level five can be calculated in one of three ways: cost per student, as appears in the State of the Industry 2018 report (ATD Research, 2018); administrative costs of the new program compared to those of the previous program; and assigning a monetary value to the benefits and using this against the cost (Deeny, 2003). Another approach suggested for quantifying e-Learning benefits would be to see beyond the money and consider other advantages created by e-Learning (Borotis & Poulymenakou, 2004; McKee, 2006; Proctor & Gamble, 2005); that is, to look at the costs and benefits associated with training, generally, as well as the advantages presented by including e-Learning in the suite of training. One such benefit is cost savings in travel expenses associated with training. An additional advantage is the ability to have on-demand training with little time spent in a physical classroom, or training conveniently (IBM, 2005). By leveraging some of these advantages, it may be possible to calculate a cost-benefit of e-Learning outside of the parameters of traditional training. Financing of e-Learning may affect the type of content created and delivered. Content may be developed in the form of video, document animation, and many other formats. All of these have an associated cost. The mode of instruction also may impact the costs. What would be the variation in costing and overheads if the course is delivered in a synchronous or asynchronous mode? These delivery modalities may drive the type of content created, for example, video vs text based. Simulations, VR, and AI are all add-ons which contribute to the costs associated with development. Additionally, the organization may choose to outsource content development incurring additional costs. Decisions about this are directly related to the goals and objectives of the training efforts.

Survey A: Organizational Environment Readiness

45

The supporting elements of an e-Learning system may include other systems which are acquired within the organization and which may need to be interconnected. The ability for systems to integrate can be one of the factors which influence the costs associated with e-Learning systems. The possibility of integrating e-Learning into existing systems has two benefits. It reduces costs by promoting efficiency of systems and avoids expenditure related to trying to merge different systems within the organization. Integration of systems is also useful in determining how information is shared from one point in the organization to the next. For example, the possibility of merging human resource systems with the learning management system gives an opportunity for the expansion of knowledge management and tracking learners. In this instance, the value of acquiring an e-Learning system should be balanced with the advantages which integration would bring about. The issue of financing cannot be discussed without looking at the human resources element. In any initiative there would be costs associated with human resources. Several questions need to be considered. Will new employees be hired in relation to the learning initiative? Is development of e-Learning going to take place in-house or be outsourced? In-house may require a team approach which would include capacity in the form of subject matter experts, instructional designers, project managers, graphic designers, and content managers, among others. Outsourcing would require choosing a suitable firm that would meet the needs of the organization. The financial decisions are imperative for the success of an e-Learning initiative, but these decisions are based on the goals and needs of the organization as well as on the value that is placed on training and improvement of employees. Weighing the benefits of training, not only from the perspective of dollars and cents but also considering the invaluable asset of having a skilled and efficient staff, is worthwhile. The alternative would be to recruit and train new staff. Additionally, with no provision for a training budget, the organization runs the risk of able staff leaving due to stagnation. It is important to understand that e-Learning presents a value proposition which has diverse and sometimes intangible benefits that cannot always be calculated in monetary returns.

Survey A: Organizational Environment Readiness Organizational Environment Survey The purpose is to discover: • • • • •

Whether they support the mission and vision of the organization. What is their contribution to the learning culture. Whether they support e-Learning. Leadership support. Financial or power responsibility.

46

5  Organizational Environment Readiness

The organizational environment survey is aimed at leaders within the organization. The role of leaders has been found to be central in determining how e-Learning succeeds within the organization. It is important to determine the leadership structure within organizations as this can affect the way in which the survey is administered. Depending on the organization, there may be various tiers of leaders with each tier having varying levels of power and influence. The survey is flexible enough to capture opinions at various levels with varying approaches to retrieving the information. The chief executive officer (CEO) or senior managers may not have time or the inclination to complete the survey forms but may be receptive to a short interview, whereas it may be easier for mid-level managers to fill the surveys. Whatever the approach used in data collection, it is important to establish who makes the decisions about financing learning initiatives and the types of budgeting power that these leaders have. The question “Will you be responsible for making financial decisions with regard to e-Learning?” therefore becomes crucial because a big part of establishing e-Learning is the budget allocated for it and the support for financing the necessary infrastructure and tools required for it. Apart from the financial support, it is important to know who would be responsible for decisions of power related to e-Learning. For example, how can skills and knowledge learned be incorporated into the learners’ working activities so that they are able to apply these to their jobs? Is decision-making decentralized or does the power rest with a few individuals? The survey also aims to gather information on the personal commitment of leaders toward learning initiatives and help understand whether they are ready and able to support implementation and sustainability of the initiative through the organization. The survey includes questions related to personal learning culture such as “How do you support learning within your organization?” and “What do you think about e-Learning as a way of learning?”. This establishes attitude toward learning generally and e-Learning specifically. If leaders are to be the champions of the initiatives, then understanding their general attitudes can be useful in determining whether they will support e-Learning. The answer to questions related to this can help establish the likelihood of how quickly e-Learning can be established and supported within the organization. The specific questions on the survey are included in Table 5.2.

Survey A: Organizational Environment Readiness

47

Table 5.2  The organizational environment readiness survey Categories Organizational goals

Personal learning culture

Organizational learning culture

Finance

Question 1. Is there a mission/vision for your organization? 2. Do you think e-Learning can support the goals of the organization? 3. How do you think e-Learning will be useful to your organization achieving its goals? 1. Do you think learning is useful to you? 2. Do you think training is useful to you? 3. Do you participate in learning activities when they are available? 4. What motivates you to participate in learning activities? 5. Do you normally take part when the organization introduces new ideas/products? 6. How do you support learning within your organization? 7. Do you have any experience with e-Learning?

Response ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ No Please list your answer here ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ No State your answer below ☐ Yes ☐ No

List your answers here ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Other (please state) 8. What do you think about e-Learning as a way State your answer of learning? below ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ 9. Do you think that you are ready to use e-Learning?. Other (please state) State your answer 10. What will determine whether you use e-Learning or not? below 11. Do you give employees opportunities to apply ☐ Yes ☐ No what they have learned in their jobs? 12. How would you define successful learning State within your organization? 13. What do you think your role would be in Please state facilitating e-Learning? 1. Are there of any policies pertaining to learning ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ within the organization? Don’t know (specify) 2. Do you support a policy giving employees ☐ Yes ☐ No time to attend training? 3. Does the organization give staff opportunities ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ to apply what they have learnt in their jobs? Other (Specify) 4. How does the organization encourage Please list your learning? answer here 5. Is information freely communicated in the ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ organization? Other (Specify) 6. Do you think that the organization is ready to ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ use e-Learning? Other (please state) 1. Will you be responsible for making financial ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ decisions about e-Learning? Other (Specify) 2. Will you be responsible for general decisions ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ regarding e-Learning? Other (Specify)

48

5  Organizational Environment Readiness

References Admiraal, W., & Lockhorst, D. (2009). E-learning in small and medium-sized enterprises across Europe attitudes towards technology, learning and training. International Small Business Journal, 27(6), 743–767. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Addison-Wesley. ATD Research. (2018). State of the industry 2018 ASTD state of the industry report. Alexandria, VA: ATD. Blackler, F. (2002). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations. Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies, 16(6), 1021–1046. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069501600605 Bogers, M., Sims, J., & West, J. (2019). What is an ecosystem? Incorporating 25 years of ecosystem research. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2019(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.3437014 Borotis, S., & Poulymenakou, A. (2004). E-learning readiness components: Key issues to consider before adopting e-learning interventions. In Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of E learn 2005: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 16622–11629). Borotis, S., Poulymenakou, A. K., & Karamanis, V. A. (2005). Embedding eLearning in Corporate Training: Lessons from a Case Study. In Uskov (Ed.), Proceedings of Web Based Education: The Fourth IASTED International Conference (pp. 461–171). IASTED. Brown, J.  S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. Dai, Z., & Duserick, F. G. (2007). An empirical study of E-learning for improving value-chain activities. Competition Forum, 5(1), 260–264. Davies, M., & Buisine, S. (2018). Innovation culture in organizations. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781119549666.ch6 Deeny, E. (2003). Calculating the real value of e-learning. Industrial and Commercial Training, 35(2), 70–72. Ekpe, E. O., Eneh, S. I., & Inyang, B. J. (2015). Leveraging organizational performance through effective mission statement. International Business Research, 8(9), 135. Ely, D. P. (1990). Conditions that facilitate the implementation of educational technology innovations. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 23(2), 298–305. https://doi.org/10.108 0/08886504.1990.10781963 Fayyoumi, A., & Monteroni, V. P. (2009). The effectiveness of e-learning: Academic and business comparison. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 10(1), 130–140. Galloway, D. L. (2005). Evaluating distance delivery and e-learning is Kirkpatrick’s model relevant? Performance Improvement, 44(4), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140440407 Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 109. IBM. (2005). Planning, implementing, & evaluating e-learning initiatives: IBM case study. American Productivity & Quality Center. James-Springer, C. (2016). Building a tool for determining e-learning readiness of organizations: A design and development study (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from https://vtechworks. lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/70912/JamesSpringer_CD_D_2016.pdf;sequence=2 Khan, B.  H. (2005). Managing e-learning: Design, delivery, implementation, and evaluation. Information Science Publishing. Khan, R., Pramjeeth, S., & Kader, A. (2018). The impact of educational technology on training and development in the banking sector. Africa Education Review, 15(1), 85–107. Kirkpatrick, D. L. (2005). Evaluating training programs. McGraw-Hill Education. Knowles, M. (1978). The adult learner: A neglected species (2nd ed.). Gulf Publishing Company.

References

49

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. McKee, C., & Cribb, A. (2006). Lifelong learning. Training and Development, 60(10), 52–54. Miller, L. (2013). ASTD 2013 State of the Industry. Workplace Learning, 67(11), 41–45. Milhem, W., Abushamsieh, K., & Pérez Aróstegui, M. N. (2014). Training strategies, theories, and types. Journal of Accounting, Business & Management, 21(1), 12–26. Moshinskie, J. (2003). Organizational best practices for preparing e-learners. In G. M. Piskurich (Ed.), Preparing learners for e-learning (pp.  91–100). Hoboken, New Jersey: Jossey-Bass/ Pfeiffer. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press. Ozturan, M., & Kutlu, B. (2010). Employee satisfaction of corporate e-training programs. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5561–5565. Park, Y.  K., Song, J.  H., Yoon, S.  W., & Kim, J. (2014). Learning organization and innovative behavior: The mediating effect of work engagement. European Journal of Training and Development, 38(1–2), 75–94. Phillips, J. J. (1997). A rational approach to evaluating training programs including calculating ROI. Journal of Lending and Credit Risk Management, 79, 43–50. Phillips, J. J. (2003). Return on investment in training and performance improvement programs (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. Proctor & Gamble. (2005). Planning, implementing, & evaluating e-learning initiatives: Proctor & Gamble case study. American Productivity & Quality Center. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Simon and Schuster. Rosenberg, M. J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. In The art & practice of learning organization. Doupleday Currency. Serrat, O. (2017). Building a learning organization. In: Knowledge Solutions. Springer, Singapore. https://learning.linkedin.com/resources/workplace-­learning-­report-­2018. Sharma, K. (2011). Financial implications of implementing an e-learning project. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(7), 658–686. Steenekamp, K., Botha, G., & Moloi, K. C. (2012). Sustaining change in a learning organization. Africa Education Review, 9(2), 380–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2012.722389. van Breda-Verduijn, H., & Heijboer, M. (2016). Learning culture, continuous learning, organizational learning anthropologist. Industrial and Commercial Training, 48(2), 123–128. Welsh, E. T., Wanberg, C. R., Brown, K. G., & Simmering, M. J. (2003). E-learning: Emerging uses, empirical results and future directions. International Journal of Training and Development, 7(4), 245–258.

Chapter 6

Human Resource and Capacity Readiness

Human Resource Dimensions Human resources remain one of the core support systems needed for implementation of e-Learning. What are the human resource needs for e-Learning? Rana and Sharma (2019) classify human resource development into three areas: personal development, team development, and organizational development. One of the roles of human resource development is in performance improvement (Becker, 2013, as cited in Rana & Sharma, 2019). Syntheses of literature (Barrow, 2003; Schreurs et al., 2008) related to e-Learning show that human resources within organizations can be classified into three areas: • The human resource department, as the organizational department which coordinates training and development. • The human resource capacity within the organization, referring to the people who can develop and sustain the e-Learning initiative. • The human resources of the organization, representing the employees who are to be trained within the organization. All three functions are important when adopting e-Learning. This chapter discusses the three main areas of human resources as it relates to e-Learning. This is followed by a description of the survey.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. James-Springer, K. Cennamo, A Tool for Determining e-Learning Readiness, SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76994-9_6

51

52

6  Human Resource and Capacity Readiness

Human Resources as a Department The human resource department is central to the fulfilment of organizational goals and keeping an organization competitive. This is achieved through human resource department planning and reviewing the short-, medium-, and long-term training needs of an organization. It requires assessing the performance needs of the organization and aligning them with training activities. Effective training is expected to increase organizational performance. Human resource departments are primarily responsible for tracking, assessing whether training is effective and being done, and recordkeeping associated with training activities (Barrow, 2003), otherwise referred to as knowledge management. Knowledge management (KM) is defined as the “creation, archiving, and sharing of valued information, expertise, and insight within and across communities of people and organizations with similar interests and needs” (Rosenberg, 2001, p. 66). If KM is efficiently done, it can play a part in building organizational knowledge. For Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), creation of knowledge appears at all levels of an organization, from frontline workers to management. They describe knowledge creation as holistic, a union of mind and body. The KM role in data collection and analysis can provide the basis for new ideas and identify existing gaps in knowledge within the organization. The data helps guide the focus of training, as these gaps may include learning processes, knowledge creation, knowledge sharing, and knowledge accumulation (Chutivongse & Gerdsi, 2020). The advantage of good knowledge management is that it informs learning strategies. KM should be a key role of the human resource department. For e-Learning, the human resource department’s role is important both in the implementation and adoption stages. The human resource department is aware of what personnel exist, and are needed, in addition to their knowledge and competence related to e-Learning. There is direct knowledge of the skills that are present and a sense of how this information can be used in the future. Because the human resource department is responsible for hiring staff, they are aware of the entry skills of employees and should be the point of continued tracking of employee’s achievements and accomplishments. It can help identify gaps and assist with knowledge sharing related to keeping employees informed and aware of their learning needs. KM also assists with anticipating what skills and competence will need to be developed using e-Learning. Organizations may choose to use several systems to track employee progress and store and share content used in e-Learning. These include LMSs, course tracking software, and other business performance systems. The information generated from these systems is useful in two ways: for managers to track learner progress (Newton & Doonga, 2007) and for learners to monitor their individual progress (Proctor & Gamble, 2005). Poor knowledge management practices can result in difficulty in tracking employee information. For example, Borotis et al. (2005) observed fragmented processes for managing training. The responsibility was shared by three departments who had systems which did not operate in unison. This created

Human Resource Dimensions

53

redundancy with employee information, making it difficult to track employee progress. Technology has changed the role of KM from the traditional role of document storage to a more central role in the formal and informal learning processes within an organization by facilitating access to knowledge. The human resource department, as the center of KM activities, can guide the choice of training activities and the impending impact of achieving organizational goals. Sources of knowledge exist throughout the organization, and awareness of them can assist in understanding the cultural aspects related to knowledge. This can assist in guiding how knowledge is disseminated and can go a long way toward achieving a competitive organization.

Human Resources as Capacity Human resources as capacity refers to the individuals within the organization who can develop and sustain the e-Learning initiative. The skills and knowledge which exist within the organization regarding the persons who are expected to work toward the eventual adoption of e-Learning may affect the likelihood of success and have an impact on financing e-Learning. O’Rourke (1993) acknowledges that several types of skills and competencies are needed from planning to implementation of e-Learning. There is a need to establish who is currently employed and who is needed to implement the e-Learning. The most obvious starting point of this capacity audit is likely to be the IT department simply because of the technology associated with e-Learning. Implementors can come from any part of the organization or even be outsourced. Since e-Learning impacts many systems and processes within an organization, a full picture of what is needed should be identified. The assessment and implementation of e-Learning needs should involve input from affected departments. Hall (2002) recommends the creation of an adoption committee in implementing e-Learning. It should involve representatives from everyone who is going to be affected by the initiative. People within the organization are useful resources for e-Learning since they bring experience, knowledge, and skills that support the process. What are the qualities of the people involved in the e-Learning adoption process? To answer this question, it is important to determine just what the human resource needs related to e-Learning mean. What are the knowledge and skills needed to establish e-Learning within the organization? What impacts would this have on decisions related to human resources? These questions influence decisions to as to whether there is need to outsource or use internal resources to drive the e-Learning initiative. It can be concluded, therefore, that an audit of current and desired competence, skills, and knowledge is required. e-Learning requires three main stages as seen in Fig. 6.1. Moreover, the various stages in e-Learning are directly related to the expected functions associated with sustaining an e-Learning system, as shown in Fig. 6.2. Functions will be explained first, followed by an explanation of each of the three stages.

54

6  Human Resource and Capacity Readiness

Planning Stage

Production Stage

Implementation Stage

Fig. 6.1  Stages in e-Learning development

Fig. 6.2  Functions of an e-Learning system

The administrative function includes the individuals responsible for implementing the initiative as well as for sustaining it. These may be completely different individuals. Individuals involved in administration would include project managers, financial managers, and marketing teams for the e-Learning project. Marketing of e-Learning products to both internal and external stakeholders is key. This can help in obtaining buy-in from both groups. Production involves the development of the e-Learning products. At this stage, there is a need for skilled persons to be utilized in the development of the product. Organizations may choose to outsource production if the capacity does not exist in-house. Learner support includes technical staff that support the implementation stage of e-Learning. Ranging from IT technicians, LMS administrators, to help desk staff, their role is to ensure the smooth delivery of the product, and they function as monitors of the system along with the administrators.

Human Resource Dimensions

55

For each function, a specific skill set is required. An audit will establish what skills are in place already and what is needed to get e-Learning up and running. It will also help identify what is needed at each stage of e-Learning. The stages in an e-Learning project will be described next. Planning Stage  In the initial stage of planning, it is important to get a comprehensive picture of the project. The planning stages lay the foundation for successful e-Learning projects (Khan, 2015). A complete picture of the needs for e-Learning is likely to be achieved if many parts of the organization are represented. If an adoption committee is set up, it needs to involve representatives from everyone who is going to be affected by the initiative. e-Learning projects may require collaboration between individuals with various competencies (Khan, 2015). Hall (2002) states that partnering with various departments helps understand the challenges of each department. This is useful in two ways. Firstly, general involvement ensures that the needs of everyone are considered. It encourages a variety of perspectives. Secondly, it is an opportunity for building knowledge and capacity about e-Learning, thus creating champions for e-Learning. A champion is defined as someone who has knowledge of the initiative and is willing to move it forward (Rosenberg, 2001). The champions can come from various levels within the organization: enthusiastic leaders who support e-Learning, enthusiastic managers, and enthusiastic users who go on to tell positive stories of e-Learning. This produces a measure of awareness within the organization that serves as a starting point for obtaining buy-in for e-Learning. It is also important initially to identify the existing gaps in competence, skills, and knowledge with an audit. This is particularly important in instances where the organization is weighing internal development against outsourcing. Planning for in-house design and development would include determining whether the necessary staff, such as instructional designers, subject matter experts, and production team members, such as graphic designers, instructors, and project managers, are available. The available support and composition of IT staff are also important since, after implementation, they are responsible for supporting and maintaining e-Learning. Production Stage  The production stage is unique to e-Learning. While face-toface delivery may require some production, e-Learning brings new dimensions. Because of the ever-changing nature of e-Learning, it is necessary to have skills which not only take into consideration the types of content but also the ways in which the content can be manipulated to meet the needs of learners. This means that the production stages should include subject matter experts who are knowledgeable about the content area, instructional designers versed in pedagogy and online methodologies, and educational technologists who are involved in the creation of e-Learning artifacts and products. An understanding of who is needed in the production stages is important particularly in instances where decisions should be made about whether to outsource content development.

56

6  Human Resource and Capacity Readiness

Implementation Stage  The implementation stage requires an understanding of supporting personnel who will be in place to maintain the initiative by providing support and for consistency of the quality of the system. The information technology (IT) department is often seen as key to support and maintenance. However, this role goes far beyond the IT department. The implementation stage includes activities related to effective administration and support of e-Learning (Khan, 2015). This includes the need for learner-support systems such as help desks and organizational policy and agreements on how employees will be accommodated in achieving training goals. In the implementation stages, monitoring and evaluation of the process and of the system is also equally important. This section began with the question: What are the qualities of the people involved in the e-Learning adoption process? For the qualities to be determined, it is necessary to establish the stages of adoption and the types of personnel who will be needed at each stage. Understanding what and who is needed serves as a baseline for an analysis of what exists within the organization. This audit is expected to discover what skills exist with reference to e-Learning and what is needed. The human resource department role is important in all stages of adoption since it plays a constant supporting role in the organization. KM plays a particularly crucial role in this, since it can determine what skills are present and use this information to plan. The human resource department also needs to have the foresight to anticipate what skills and competence will be needed if e-Learning is to become a part of the learning tools within the organization.

Human Resource and Learners We have reviewed the two other related ideas of HR: HR as a department and HR as capacity. We now look at HR from the perspective of the employee who is the learner in instructional interventions. Learners are the human resources who will eventually drive the success of an organization through transfer and use of the knowledge and skills acquired in training. They are the ones who will drive the mission and vision of the organization. The employee remains the focus of getting the company to what it wants to be (see Fig. 6.3). This means that to adopt e-Learning, an understanding of the central player is necessary to make the initiative successful. How is this different from any other training? Training is guided by determination of a human performance deficit which usually is directly related to the job that the employee is expected to perform. A face-to-face intervention may require little, if any, additional skills and motivation of the employee. e-Learning introduces other expectations beyond those of the job-­ related requirements because of its modality. Because there are additional expectations of learners, e-Learning requires a more detailed understanding of the background and context of learners.

Human Resource Dimensions

57

Fig. 6.3  Organizational change and performance goals

e-Learning presents a unique challenge to learners since training is conducted in a technology mediated environment. Depending on the individual’s background and experience, the e-Learning system may present a barrier that has to be overcome before the performance problem can be directly addressed. It is, therefore, important to conduct an analysis of the learner regarding using technology prior to moving forward with the intervention since learner characteristics guide the design of the intervention. Several factors need to be determined in advance of an e-Learning intervention: • • • •

Who are the learners? What is the attitude of the learners toward using e-Learning? What general skills do learners need to use e-Learning? Will learners be able to access training materials within and outside the workplace?

Each factor will be elaborated on below. Who are the learners? The learners are employees who are being trained with the aim of performance improvement. Learners within organizations may be of varying ages and backgrounds. These factors influence their attitudes and preexisting skills. It can be assumed that employees are adult learners and, as adult learners, they are often expected to take responsibility for their learning. Training offers an opportunity for self-improvement and learning of new skills which they are expected to use for performance improvement. Adults tend to have control of many aspects of their lives. Traditional face-to-­ face training tends to be more facilitator controlled than e-Learning. e-Learning often includes many elements of independent learning and requires learners to control their learning and interaction with the content. It is assumed that learners have the capability to work independently with the content. This capability may require the correct attitudes, habits, and skills for successful training. The organization needs to test these assumptions. What is the attitude of the learners toward using e-Learning? Major differences between e-Learning and traditional training include the role of technology mediation in instruction and some degree of learner autonomy. Thus, determination of learner attitudes and skills with relation to technology factors is important from the onset. Often the validity of e-Learning compared to other instructional formats is

58

6  Human Resource and Capacity Readiness

questioned. A negative attitude toward e-Learning can affect the learner’s willingness to use the technology. This affects the training outcomes and achievement of expected goals of the training. Additionally, attitudes may be related to previous experiences that learners may have had with e-Learning and technology in general. Purnomo and Lee (2013) found that, since workers were used to using computers for everyday tasks, their computer self-efficacy was high in relation to using computers for e-Learning. However, Schreurs et al. (2008) recognized that, even though employees have experience using computers, they have little experience using e-Learning. This lack of experience initially affected their ability to use e-Learning packages. Attitudes and skills about e-Learning always appear to be related. What general skill level do learners need to use e-Learning? Nowhere in the literature is a minimum skill requirement expressly stated for e-Learning. The degree of technical readiness cannot always be predetermined; systems may vary from one organization to the next. However the most basic requirement is for a learner to be able to enter and use the system. When learners lack these abilities, the best designed system will remain under-utilized. It is therefore necessary to understand the basic abilities of learners and their willingness to improve. It is also worthwhile to establish a baseline of existing skills and attitudes to design contextually appropriate training. The initial skills and attitudes are generally premised on prior experiences with technology, skills that they already possess, and general attitudes toward teaching and technology, as well as learner habits. Will learners be able to access training materials within and outside the workplace? One of the main attractions for using e-Learning is the prospect of flexible, anytime, anywhere learning. The anytime, anywhere concept can only be successful if systems are in place to facilitate this type of training. This would mean that internal and external systems need to be suitable for allowing access to training. Access can be facilitated not only by providing devices and software but by policies and procedures which allow such activities. Are employees expected to do training during work hours, since this presents its own challenge? If so, how time is allocated to achieving this may need to be established. Are individuals who work in the field expected to use their own devices for training? Since individuals are working from home, will employees need specific devices to access training? In the current circumstances where there is difficulty with work-life balance, it may be necessary to develop policy on the classification of training and learning activities, especially those that are completed at home. For example, would training that is being done on employee time be considered workhours? Who is expected to pay for the devices and the connection? These are just some of the questions which are related to facilitating access to learning. The answers to these questions also relate to the learning culture in the organization and the value that is placed on facilitating learning. The dynamics within workplaces necessitate discussion on the expectations of access to training involving e-Learning. Learners remain the center of e-Learning since an understanding of learners affects the design of interventions. Any system is only as good as the use learners make of the resources.

Survey B: Human Resource and Capacity Survey

59

Survey B: Human Resource and Capacity Survey Human Resources and Capacity Survey The purpose is to determine: • • • •

Whether training is in line with organizational goals. Who is responsible for the decision-making with regard to e-Learning. Who keeps track of employee data. Whether the necessary skills are available within the organization.

The focus of the human resource and capacity survey is to gather information related to the role of the HR department in relation to general learning and training within the organization. Given that e-Learning is one of the instructional interventions related to improving performance, it is important to establish how the HR department influences the broad strategic direction and goals of the organization. The presence of a training plan and the ability to compare this training plan with the overall vision for the organization are useful in determining how exactly e-Learning can fit into the general plan for the organization. The survey also explores the skills and knowledge that are available for implementation of e-Learning, as well as the human resource needs. The operations of the HR  department, regarding employee information management, help establish the likelihood that employees will be able to benefit from the opportunities presented to them with e-Learning if: 1. There is a repository of information regarding their progress. 2. The HR department is aware of gaps in skills and knowledge. 3. There are established measures for tracking and understanding what learners have done and the skills they have. As with the organizational environment survey targeted at leaders, the level of power, both in decision-making processes and finance, is important. For example, is learning/training financed from the HR budget? Other questions in relation to costs would include establishing whether the human resources are available within the organization for the production stages of e-Learning. If not available, it may require outsourcing services, which would have implications for time and budget. It is important to establish who is responsible for making decisions related to this area, as this may determine whether e-Learning can move forward or not. The human resource and capacity survey is presented in Table 6.1.

60

6  Human Resource and Capacity Readiness

Table 6.1  The human resource and capacity survey Categories Organizational goals and strategic direction

Question 1. Is there a mission/vision for your organization? 2. Is there a vision for learning in your organization? 3. Is there a learning/training policy? 4. Is there a training plan in your organization? 5. Is there a relationship between organizational goals and the training plan? 6. What do you see as the role of e-Learning in your organization? 7. How do you think e-Learning will be useful to your organization? Organizational leaders 1. Do managers/supervisors support training policy? 2. How do organizational leaders support training incentives? Organizational learning 1. What is your view on learning within culture the organization?

2. What methods are currently used to support learning in the organization? 3. Are there other opportunities for learning apart from formal training? 4. What is your view on using e-Learning to facilitate learning in the organization? 5. Do departments normally collaborate on projects? 6. When are employees expected to participate in e-Learning activities? 7. How has your organization handled new initiatives in the past?

8. How do you think e-Learning can support learning/training incentives? 9. Are new learning/training initiatives been assessed and evaluated?

10. How do you think the organization can best facilitate using e-Learning?

Response ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Do not know ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ No

Please give your answer here Please list your answer here ☐ Yes ☐ No Please list your answer here ☐ Supports organizational learning ☐ Does not support organizational learning Please list ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Support it ☐ Do not support it ☐ Yes ☐ No Please state ☐ Implementation of new initiatives has been positive ☐ Implementation of new initiatives has been negative Please list ☐ An assessment and evaluation plan is in place ☐ An assessment and evaluation plan is not in place Please state (continued)

References

61

Table 6.1 (continued) Categories Finance

Human resources

Question 1. Is learning/training financed from the HR budget? 2. Who is expected to develop e-Learning material?

Response ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Other (please state) Tick all which apply ☐ Internal staff ☐ Outsourced 3. Who is expected to pay for employee Tick all which apply learning/training? ☐ Employee ☐ Organization 1. Can employees’ information be ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Other easily sourced? (please state) 2. How is learning/training tracked in Please list the human resource department? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Other 3. Do you have records of what skills (please state) are needed by each employee to perform at their jobs? Please state 4. Who will be involved in the implementation of e-Learning? (Department or individuals) 5. What skills will be needed within the Please state organization to implement e-Learning?

References Barrow, C. (2003). E-training and development. John Wiley & Sons. Becker, M. (2013). Personnel development: education, support and organizational development in theory and practice. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel. Borotis, S., Poulymenakou, A. K., & Karamanis, V. A. (2005). Embedding eLearning in corporate training: Lessons from a case study. In Uskov (Ed.), Proceedings of Web-Based Education: The Fourth IASTED International Conference (pp. 461–171). Grindelwal. Chutivongse, N., & Gerdsi, N. (2020). Creating an innovative organization analytical approach to develop a strategic road map guiding organizational development. Journal of Modelling in Management, 15(1), 50–87. Hall, B. (2002). Six steps to developing a successful e-learning initiative: Excerpts from the e-learning guidebook. In The ASTD E-learning handbook: Best practices, strategies, and case studies for an emerging field. McGraw-Hill. Khan, B. H. (2015). Introduction to e-learning. In Khan, B. H., & Ally, M. (Eds.), International handbook of e-learning volume 1: Theoretical perspectives and research. (pp. 1–40). Routledge. Newton, R., & Doonga, N. (2007). Corporate e-learning: Justification for implementation and evaluation of benefits. A study examining the views of training managers and training providers. Education for Information, 25(2), 111–130. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. O’Rourke, J. (1993). Roles, and competencies in distance education. Commonwealth of Learning. Proctor & Gamble. (2005). Planning, implementing, & evaluating e-learning initiatives: Proctor & Gamble case study. American Productivity & Quality Center. Purnomo, S., & Lee, Y.  H. (2013). E-learning adoption in the banking workplace in Indonesia: An empirical study. Information Development, 29(2), 138–153. https://doi. org/10.1177/0266666912448258

62

6  Human Resource and Capacity Readiness

Rana, G., & Sharma, R. (2019). Emerging human resource management practices in industry 4.0. Strategic HR Review, 18(4), 176–181. Rosenberg, M.  J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. McGraw-Hill. Schreurs, J., Sammour, G., & Ehlers, U. (2008). ERA-E-learning readiness analysis: A eHealth case study of E-learning readiness. In M. D. Lytras, J. M. Carroll, E. Damiani, R. D. Tennyson, D. Avison, G. Vossen, & P. Ordonez De Pablos (Eds.), The open knowledge society. A computer science and information systems manifesto (pp. 267–275). Springer.

Chapter 7

Technology and Practice Readiness

Technology Readiness When thinking of adopting e-Learning, the first thoughts would normally go toward the “e” in e-Learning which is directly related to technology. Fortunately, there has been an evolution of thinking with relation to e-Learning. Adams and Morgan (2007) recognize a change in the focus of e-Learning from a focus on the technology itself toward a focus on the needs of learners and users of the system. They describe the “first-generation” e-Learning where technology infrastructure was set up first and the need or use for it defined second. As e-Learning evolved, the “second-­generation” e-Learning strategy identifies the needs of the users and possible pedagogical approaches before choosing the relevant technology. This shift in thinking about the role of technology in e-Learning led to the question of whether there is a minimum infrastructure requirement for e-Learning adoption. Technology, in the context of e-Learning, represents computers and other digital technologies which supports the delivery of instruction. Decisions on technology may be very contextual, and so the relevance of technology readiness can be heavily tied into the circumstance of the organization. Technology readiness refers to an assessment of technology and the factors related to the technology used for supporting an e-Learning initiative. It is possible to have sophisticated technology and limited to no users of the system if learner attitudes prevent them from using the technology. Athough all e-Learning readiness models indicate that infrastructure is an important aspect of determining readiness,  (Aydin & Tasci,  2005; Chapnick,  2000; Borotis & Poulymenakou, 2005; Psycharis, 2005) technology readiness also includes thinking about how e-Learning technology fits into the organization. If we think of technology readiness from beyond the technology infrastructure, the questions related to e-Learning readiness move toward a broader perspective of technology in relation to e-Learning.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. James-Springer, K. Cennamo, A Tool for Determining e-Learning Readiness, SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76994-9_7

63

64

7  Technology and Practice Readiness

This chapter begins with a discussion of the role of the IT department, particularly with an increased dependence on their processes for business generally, followed by an examination of the place of infrastructure in e-Learning. The chapter continues with a discussion of the relationship between information technology and the user, as well as the practices in the IT department in relation to integration and maintenance. Like the chapters before, it ends with a description of the related survey questions.

The Information Technology (IT) Department What is the role of the IT department in e-Learning? The initial role of the IT department in business was to facilitate business goals and to overcome various business challenges. Technology continues to change rapidly and become pervasive throughout all departments within an organization. The IT department now has influence on the core functions of the organization. This department is now seen as the driver of change within organizations (Newman, 2016). Understanding the central role of this department in an organization is imperative when planning and implementing an e-Learning effort. In the section on HR, we discussed the need for having the capacity within departments to support e-Learning. The IT department plays a central role in these efforts. In other words, this department needs to have adequate buy-in and involvement to make these efforts successful. A common mistake is viewing the e-Learning initiative as a technology training initiative rather than one involving the IT department. The e-Learning efforts may impact the IT department in several ways: • There is a need to understand the infrastructure needed for successful implementation. • There may be a need for uploading courses from external providers onto the system. If integration is required from an external system, the IT department is needed to make this transition happen. • The IT department may be aware of threats to the system and other factors which may influence implementation. There is a need for a unified approach to the e-Learning implementation for the simple reason that expertise may be needed from several areas within the organization. The general expectations of the e-Learning and IT system are usability, security, protection of information, and reliability of the system.

Infrastructure We turn now to consider the role of technology in e-Learning. Computer technology infrastructure generally refers to the hardware, networks, and software needed to run the information technology environment. Hardware includes the physical assets

Technology Readiness

65

that may be available. These are the basic computers/devices/computer systems used and set up. Information technology infrastructure also includes current internet/intranet assets, bandwidth, and connectivity. Software comprises what is used in day-to-day transactions within the company, current delivery tools, and security setups. In the context of e-Learning, all are important. The hardware helps facilitate connectivity and access, whereas the software is determined by things such as the LMS which is going to be used and other elements of the usability of the system. Computer technology infrastructure eventually drives how the e-Learning system should operate. The relationship which exists between computer technology and e-Learning may vary depending on the organization’s need and finances. Computer technology support may be required to facilitate e-Learning in formal training activities and even informal practices. The infrastructure should have a basis derived from the questions: • What is the goal of using e-Learning? Much of this has been discussed earlier. It must be noted that this question may very well be organization specific. • Where will learning take place? Is the expectation that learning will take place at the workplace, or offsite, in the field, or at home? • What would the learners need to access the training? There is no set minimum requirement on infrastructure related to e-Learning, but the ability to access and use the e-Learning system seamlessly should be one of the primary decision-making factors for technology. “No e-Learning strategy will be viable if people can’t get to the Web. At its basic level, access simply means everyone (or at least most people) can get online. If people do not have basic access, nothing else matters” (Rosenberg, 2007, p. 152). The quality and the usability of the system influence whether learners will want to access it. The type and format of content is also one of the influencers. Technology requirements for e-Learning is a broad construct since the requirements are linked to the context and purpose for which it is being used. This, in effect, would impact the type of hardware and software that is eventually adopted. Figure 7.1 outlines this relationship.

IT and the User Why is IT important from a user’s perspective? e-Learning presents a particular challenge to the regular IT functions since it represents an overlap between technology and the human interaction required in e-Learning. In many instances, the focus is only on the infrastructure and not on the learning elements. e-Learning presents a balancing act between the two disciplines. Pavel et al. (2015) define information and communication technology (ICT) as “the ability to create access to information and communication, more so than the technology” (p.705). They tie e-Learning to the use of ICT in education. Their definition points to the need to look at not just the “technology,” the hardware and the software, but how ICT and its role in development can assist with access to educational experiences.

66

7  Technology and Practice Readiness

Organization

Context Purpose

Technology Hardware

Software

User

Access Connectivity Usability Quality Design

Fig. 7.1  Outline of the relationship between context, hardware and software

e-Learning facilitates anywhere, anytime learning. For this to occur, the user must have access and connectivity, both within the work setting and outside of it. From the perspective of the organization, the connection should be robust enough and stable enough to handle the traffic expected in e-Learning. The user experience should be stable and reliable. User-system models, such as the technology acceptance model (TAM) developed by Davis (1989), over time have shown that user experiences with technology affect their satisfaction with using the system. The TAM is based on the parameters of usability, flexibility, or malleability. This would mean that the system needs to have a degree of ease of use as well as be regularly maintained to ensure a seamless user experience. Davis (1989) states that if users perceive that the system is easy to use, then they will be willing to persist with the technology. The Delone and McLean (D&M) success model (2003) was developed to determine the success of information systems within organizations. The model identifies relationships among several variables: information quality, system quality, and service quality. These three variables can answer questions about the overall quality of the system. The second aspect of access and connectivity may lie with the user. What types of devices are they using? Do they have sufficient bandwidth and access, at home, in the field, and in other locations from which they need to connect to the system? Where training will take place not only affects access but also usability. Davis’s (1989) TAM identifies a relationship between an information system’s innovation and the quality of the system delivery. Interruptions in learning or difficulty with getting information influences whether learners continue to participate in e-Learning. Slow Internet access can result in problems and dissatisfaction among learners. The system needs to be flexible enough to accommodate various types of devices, and the organization must understand the needs of the employees such as their ability to connect outside of the organization’s systems. The infrastructure available also affects the type of content and resources that can be included in e-Learning. Earlier versions of e-Learning used static media such as CD ROMs; today the delivery tools are much more flexible and depend upon either an intranet or the Internet for distribution. e-Learning may include many

Technology Readiness

67

types of media in facilitating instruction. These include text, audio, video, animation, and live streaming. The format and delivery of content contributes to the probability of the utilization of these resources. Text-based content formats place the least amount of strain on bandwidth; however, they tend to discourage engagement of learners. To provide the necessary stimulation, along with the increased sophistication of content formats, e-Learning materials are including more multimedia which require better bandwidth and infrastructure. Increased bandwidth enables delivery of more flexible forms of e-Learning, but high bandwidth is not always available. Understanding the types of learners who are going to use the system can help decide the pedagogical approach and formats of content to be used in e-Learning. Therefore, the balance must be found between getting good access with limited lower bandwidth designs and adding variety to e-Learning offerings using high bandwidth multimedia components. Successful distribution and use of these learning tools depend on the ability of learners to access content. An e-Learning system is only as good as the manner in which the  user accesses  it. The most important consideration in e-Learning then becomes the user with the lowest level of access. What would this user need? What would be the requirements for this type of user? Using the lowest technology specifications possible does not only affect people trying to access the system from home but also employees working in the field. Several factors determine what technology is needed for e-Learning. The performance need guides the content and skill to be developed, while the location of training influences some of the technology decisions. Internal training requires learners to have ways of accessing and using content during work hours, and this has to be facilitated by the availability of devices and proper policies to guide matters related to technology (Khan, 2005). Access to the e-Learning system should be the primary factor guiding technology decisions. The quality and the usability of the system influence whether learners will want to access it. This means that although there is no set minimum requirement, all initial infrastructure decisions must be aimed at facilitating and encouraging this access. The accessibility need is dependent on what learners, content, and delivery will look like. The minimum requirement for technology must be related to the goal of the training. Even in the early days of e-Learning adoption, Proctor and Gamble (2005) capture the idea that, although technology is important, it does not exist in isolation, stating “Don’t get caught up in the technology… Keep it simple and never underestimate how hard the technology will be for someone else” (p. 124).

Integration Concerns Integration refers to the ability of technology systems within organizations to communicate and transfer information seamlessly. Integration, at face value, seems to have little to do with e-Learning, but on closer examination, a discussion of integration is relevant to e-Learning for several reasons:

68

7  Technology and Practice Readiness

• Integration may involve unifying several systems related to e-Learning, both external and internal to the organization. • e-Learning brings with it specific security concerns which may affect the entire organization. • Integration often affects software and hardware decisions. • Integration may also have financial implications. Within organizations, several types of software tailored to departmental needs may be used. Each type of software bears costs, as well as perceived returns, in terms of time savings and increased efficiency. The main purpose is often to improve on everyday processes. Inclusion of e-Learning in an organization would mean that careful thought would be needed as to how e-Learning works with existing systems and how compatibility differences can be resolved. Apart from technical compatibility, there is a need to weigh the advantages and disadvantages that the software brings. One example is that e-Learning generates data and information which may be useful for the HR department. If it is possible to integrate or use the e-Learning system along with the system used in the HR department, then there are possible savings in efficiency and money. Even though software and hardware are two separate entities, decisions related to the two are interrelated. Compatibility is determined by the ability of the two entities to operate together without glitches; this would be the ideal scenario. The use of e-Learning systems introduces the concept of openness. e-Learning systems should be open, as learners may need to access them with various types of devices and software in their e-Learning efforts. The persistent changes in technology may also impact what systems are run and how often they need to be changed. In this rapidly changing technology landscape, there needs to be consistent maintenance of systems to ensure that internal systems remain compatible and able to communicate with each other. An additional dimension of integration is the constant need for the system to adapt. e-Learning is flexible in many ways. It can use different modes for delivery; it can be delivered anywhere, anytime; and its content can be changed to suit the context. In order to remain adaptable, changes may occur in several systems at a time. This can be seen in the world of content creation where some of the authoring tools strive to be become more user-friendly and universal, causing the LMS to have to update to accommodate them. It means that there may be a need for constant and consistent upgrades and maintenance. Individuals responsible for e-Learning systems need to be aware constantly of changes and new tools which can enhance the system. The usability and quality of the e-Learning system have been found to correlate directly to the willingness of learners to continue to interact with a system. As delivery systems become more sophisticated and designed to support “just in time” delivery, the systems must remain up to date and be relevant/compatible with existing systems. So far, we have discussed integration with respect to internal systems of an organization. Organizations often choose to outsource parts of their e-Learning system. If e-Learning is developed by on-site personnel, there may be a need to use third-­ party products and software. If product development is offsite, integration of local

Survey C: Technology and Practice

69

systems with vendor products will be needed. Therefore, it is the role of the IT department to determine how these two processes can be accommodated. If new tools can integrate with existing IT systems, this can help reduce overall costs. Since vendor material is available both customized and not customized, the prospect of integration is especially relevant with outsourced products. The decision to customize is directly linked to cost. Therefore, the awareness of existing technology within an organization is a factor which needs to be considered up front in the e-Learning adoption process. Maintenance and integration of e-Learning technology have significant impact on the cost and the ability to sustain an e-Learning system. Using technology that can easily integrate into IT structures that already exist saves cost. The integration of external and internal systems presents security risks as well. What would be the security issues associated with e-Learning? Online security is a major concern in any organization. The security of e-Learning systems in relation to other organizational systems should be of paramount importance, as many organizations continue to transform using technology. e-Learning systems are particularly vulnerable because they are open and continually exposed to security threats (Bandara et al., 2014). e-Learning systems house a lot of data which needs to be protected. Much of this information is of confidential nature since the systems involve storage of information on a learner’s performance. In recent times, data privacy law, such as the European General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and other equivalent privacy laws, has changed the way in which we can use personal data. The responsibility rests on the organization to ensure the security of employee information. There is a case for considering integration when adopting e-Learning. Integration has direct impact on cost savings, both in terms of cash in hand and efficiency. Integration of e-Learning with existing systems encourages an overall need for consistent maintenance since inefficiencies in one part of the system can easily affect others. Integration also promotes security within the entire system.

Survey C: Technology and Practice Technology and Practice SurveyIts purpose is to determine: • Whether IT staff see themselves as part of the process. • General attitudes toward e-Learning. • Current practices in the department. • The existing IT infrastructure. The main purpose of the technology and practice survey is to determine whether the tools needed to support the growth of e-Learning are present. This includes the infrastructural elements such as the necessary hardware and software. It also seeks to determine the general attitude of the IT department personnel toward such an

70

7  Technology and Practice Readiness

initiative and their general willingness to support new endeavors; explores the usual processes of system maintenance and integration, as a way to determine levels of readiness; and seeks to find out this department’s ability to obtain what is needed for day-to-day functions. One constant with all the surveys is to establish an understanding of organizational goals and how they fit into the department’s current tasks and duties; thus, the survey tries to identify the relationship between organizational goals and the tasks performed, as well as establishing how e-Learning aligns with the expectations of the department. The IT survey is twofold as it includes questions which capture information about a personal learning culture of IT staff, looking at them as learners and possibly champions within the system, as well as their roles within the department that may be needed to spearhead and assist in the various stages of e-Learning adoption. This approach is necessary since attitudes toward the new initiatives can affect the eventual outcomes of implementation. Of paramount importance is determining whether the skills and knowledge to assist with e-Learning exist within the department. The question “What do you think you need to support e-Learning?” is aimed at a reflection on the individual’s existing skill set, in relation to the skill set needed for supporting e-Learning. But even though the necessary skills may be present, the attitudes may affect the rollout and implementation. Within organizations, there may be centralized or decentralized approaches. The “IT” department may not be the department where the skills are needed, but it may serve as a support department. The results of the survey questions will help guide decisions as to whether e-Learning should be a separate department or be subsumed into the already existing structures within the organization. The design of the survey encourages flexibility in understanding that e-Learning may be administered in various contexts, within varying visions and models of organizations. In this survey, the focus on finance is somewhat different; unlike the questions posed to leaders which were focused on both power and the ability to make general financing decisions, this survey speaks directly to who has the authority to administer the budget. It includes questions as to who controls the allocations within the IT budget, as well as the ability of the department to receive the necessary financial support for equipment and maintenance. This element of the survey will help determine the degree of decentralization of financial decisions within the organization. Questions related to the financial support available for maintenance and upgrades will help understand the likelihood of the system being maintained and updated on time. This would also help determine whether e-Learning purchases will be supported at an organizational level or will come out of the budget of the department. The technology section attempts to capture the types of infrastructure currently available in the organization and how these can align with what is needed for e-Learning, as well as to give a sense of the capacity of the organization to support some of the necessary software and hardware to run e-Learning. The section also aims to ascertain the barriers that can be projected for implementation of e-Learning. The question “What do you think could prevent the organization from using e-Learning?” is deliberately open-ended to get the full range of thoughts regarding the anticipated barriers to implementing e-Learning from a technology perspective.

Survey C: Technology and Practice

71

This section also seeks to capture the maintenance habits and purchasing habits regarding integration or thinking about purchases prior to acquiring them. Overall, the survey attempts to gather information from two perspectives that individuals in IT may have: their personal philosophy as employees within the organization as well as their opinions on what exists and what is needed to support e-Learning. Even in the eventuality that there is limited understanding of e-Learning, the information gathered becomes useful as it is a piece of the puzzle in relation to readiness. Table 7.1 shows the technology and practice survey.

Table 7.1  Summary of questions used in the technology and practice readiness survey Categories Question Organizational goals 1. Is there a mission/vision for your organization?

Organizational learning culture

Personal learning culture

e-Learning skills/ knowledge

Response ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Do not know 2. Do you see the relationship between training and ☐ Yes ☐ No your job? 3. How do you think e-Learning can be useful to Please list your your organization? answer here 1. Do your managers/supervisors support your ☐ Yes ☐ No learning? 2. Do your managers/supervisors support training? ☐ Yes ☐ No 3. Are you given opportunities to apply what you have learned to your job? 1. How do you know that your learning has been successful? 2. Do you think learning is useful to you? 3. Do you think training is useful to you? 4. What motivates you to participate in learning activities? 5. Do you participate in learning activities when they are available? 6. Do you normally take part when the organization introduces new ideas/products? 7. Do you have any experience with e-Learning? 8. What do you think about e-Learning as a way of learning? 1. Have you ever worked with technology for education?. 2. How comfortable are you with the idea of e-Learning? 3. What skills do you think you need to support e-Learning?.

☐ Yes ☐ No Explain here ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ No State here ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Other (State here) State here ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Other (State here) ☐ Comfortable ☐ Somewhat ☐ Not at all State here (continued)

72

7  Technology and Practice Readiness

Table 7.1 (continued) Categories Finance

Technology

Question Response 1. Who manages the IT department budget? State here 2. Are IT finance requests usually fulfilled on time? ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Other (State here) ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ 3. Does the department receive the necessary Other (State here) hardware and software for maintenance and updating? 4. What do you think would be the implications of State here e-Learning for your department? 1. How are employees currently using computer State here technology in the workplace? 2. What do you think would prevent the company State here from using e-Learning? 3. Is computer technology regularly updated and State here maintained? State here 4. Is the compatibility of existing systems (across departments) considered before purchasing new systems? 5. Can e-Learning infrastructure be integrated with ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ what currently exists? Other (State here) 6. What computer infrastructure capacity does the State here organization own?

References Adams, J., & Morgan, G. (2007). “Second generation” e-learning: Characteristics and design principles for supporting management soft-skills development. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(2), 157–185. Aydın, C. H., & Tasci, D. (2005). Measuring Readiness for e-Learning: Reflections from an emerging country. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 8(4), 244–257. Bandara, I.; Ioras, F., & Maher, K. (2014). Cyber security concerns in E-Learning education. In: Proceedings of ICERI2014 Conference, IATED, 0728-0734. Borotis, S., & Poulymenakou, A. (2004). E-learning readiness components: Key issues to consider before adopting e-learning interventions. In Richards (Ed.), Proceedings of E-learn 2005: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 16622–1629). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Chapnick, S. (2000). Needs Assessment for E-Learning. Alexandria VA: ASTD. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 Khan, B.  H. (2005). Managing e-learning: Design, delivery, implementation, and evaluation. Information Science Publishing. Newman, D. (2016). The changing role of it in the future of business. Forbes. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/35D4DZm

References

73

Pavel, A. P., Fruth, A., & Neacsu, M. N. (2015). ICT and e-learning–catalysts for innovation and quality in higher education. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 704–711. Proctor & Gamble. (2005). Planning, implementing, & evaluating e-learning initiatives: Proctor & Gamble case study. American Productivity & Quality Center. Psycharis, S. (2005). Presumptions and action affecting an e-learning adoption by the educational system. Implementation using virtual private networks. European Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 2, 1–10. Rosenberg, M. J. (2007). Beyond e-learning. Pfeiffer.

Chapter 8

Learner Readiness

Learner Characteristics and Skills Learners are central to any learning intervention, and, by extension, a mechanism for determining learner readiness is important. This chapter explores two dimensions discussed in the literature with respect to learners: the characteristics needed for successful e-Learning and whether there are specific technical skills needed by learners to use e-Learning. Learners within organizations have profiles shaped by their backgrounds such as experiences, ages, and responsibilities beyond the workplace. Understanding these characteristics can help influence choices for approaching e-Learning design. The discussions in this chapter begin by trying to determine how to define the features of organizational learners and the ways in which these characteristics may influence learners’ attitudes and willingness to use e-Learning. The chapter concludes with a list of the related survey questions.

What Are the Characteristics of a Good E-Learner? Learners in organizational settings vary in skills and knowledge particularly in organizations that have many levels and departments. Organizational learners also have varied levels of personal responsibility and time. Their place in the organization also influences organizational expectations in terms of training and skills which need to be acquired. This discussion must begin by defining the characteristics of the workplace learners.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. James-Springer, K. Cennamo, A Tool for Determining e-Learning Readiness, SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76994-9_8

75

76

8  Learner Readiness

Workplace learners are largely considered to be adult learners. Adult learning theory, andragogy, developed by Knowles (1978), differentiates adult learners from child learners. Adult learners are distinguished by: • • • •

Having a self-concept and so are self-directed in their learning. Having prerequisite knowledge. Being experiential learners. Being contextual learners.

For self-directed learners, learning must be purposeful since these learners need to understand the value of their learning. Their motivation is usually intrinsic as they can foresee the value of their learning for themselves and for their future. They are motivated by influences such as curiosity, reward, and promotion. Self-directedness requires the support systems which enable learning. These include a support system which identifies individual needs and lays out a plan for achieving these needs. This type of support system can be through the HR department and management of knowledge within the organization. Adult learners, unlike school learners, have life experiences which influence their learning. They have preexisting knowledge which influences what and how they learn. Any learning program should seek to incorporate and consider this knowledge which really influences the types and levels of the content to be delivered. “Experiential learning,” coined by Dewey (1986) and Kolb (1984), requires learning to be based on experiences of the learners. Learning takes place through practice and experimentation. Adult learners not only have preexisting knowledge and skills, but they also tend to see better value in learning if it is something they can apply directly to their jobs and their lives. This helps with motivation and helps adult learners to plan for their future. Workplace training generally is based on what is needed in the context. Training is usually based on achieving the strategic direction and goals of the organization. This type of contextual learning allows learners to construct knowledge around what they are learning (Brown, Collin & Duguid, 1989). These adult learners can relate what they are learning directly to the expected tasks and are able to build on what they already know and practice. The implications for understanding the learner in these contexts are to see each learner as unique and influenced by their background. Learning in organizations is more effective if learners can see the relevance of what is being learned and can relate the content to their jobs (Derouin et al., 2005). Knowles et al. (1998), through his anagogical process model for human resource development, highlights the learner’s role in an environment that encourages learning through a process of mutual planning and determining learner needs. All the characteristics presented in the adult learning theory are useful in shaping on-the-job learning and how it can be valuable to learners. Waight and Stewart (2005) present a conceptual model which incorporates the ideas of adult learning and e-Learning within the corporate environment. They indicate that a major part of getting positive learning outcomes is to do the necessary groundwork to gather information that would help in understanding adult

Learner Characteristics and Skills

77

needs through several types of analysis. They comment that “overall the transfer of andragogy to e-Learning is the act of understanding the theory and creatively applying its meaning in practical ways” (p. 341). In an area with little research, this model provides a suitable bridge between how adult learning theory can influence e-Learning design and how it can be applied to corporate settings. Waight and Stewart (2005) show ways in which e-Learning can support adult learners through changes in learning approaches afforded by e-Learning. For example, this can include facilitating self-directed learning through introduction of flexibility in time, structure of content, and learning activities. These changes provide opportunities for applying the concepts learned at their own pace and time. Dabbagh (2007), working in a higher education context, lists several characteristics of a successful online learner which overlap with adult learning theory. These include having a strong academic self-concept, possessing an internal locus of control, and exhibiting self-directed skills. The ability to be self-directed in an online environment is useful, since it leads to good time management and organizational skills. In recent times the European Union has adopted the term digital competence as a way of describing what is needed in the educational landscape created by new technologies (Gallardo-Echenique et al., 2015). In their literature review, Gallardo-­ Echenique et  al. describes digital competence as a multifaceted entity related to skills needed for employability that includes using computer applications to communicate, among others. A digitally competent person should have both the technical and the cognitive skills needed to navigate the information society. Becker et al. (2013) note that, in the corporate setting, learners have little choice in the training delivery modality, and so the factors or barriers which affect their adoption of e-Learning may be related to these restrictions. Common barriers noted throughout the literature are attitudes toward technology-mediated learning generally and the lack of technical skills required for using technology. Becker et  al. (2013) also refer to the general concerns of workplace learners such as time in which they can access e-Learning and the general balance between work and learning. An additional consideration is the likelihood that age would affect learner willingness to access e-Learning, particularly if individuals have been with the organizations for many years and are accustomed to using the traditional training mode. Younger employees may consider e-Learning part of the norm, particularly if they are used to using these modalities for learning.

What Special Technical Skills Should an E-Learner Have? In our discussions thus far, we recognize that the one of the main differences between e-Learning and traditional training is the use of a computer or other digital technology. Acknowledging this means that there should be consideration for the learners’ attitudes and skills related to technology if e-Learning is the norm in

78

8  Learner Readiness

relation to organizational learning. Technical readiness is assumed to be a skill associated with being able to navigate and use the e-Learning system effectively, but the term technical readiness is ill-defined. What skills should individuals accessing e-Learning have specifically? A judgment of competence varies from context to context and is usually related to an expected performance (Gilbert, 1978). Competency in the context of e-Learning can be confusing. There are two main expectations of technical or technological competencies: firstly, competency in terms of having the basic ability to log on and use the e-Learning system and, secondly, general competencies related to using computers and related digital devices  for  other applications. The confusion may have emerged from earlier conceptions of e-Learning and the relationship which exists between learner willingness to use technology based on past experiences with technology and the need for employees to be able to use specific computer technology for their work. For example, early versions of e-Learning readiness tools, such as the one used by Floyd (2003) for the A Company Making Everything (ACME) program, asked a question: What operating system do you use? • • • • • •

Windows 95. Windows 98. Windows 2000. Macintosh. UNIX. Other.

Presently, these operating systems are outdated making the instrument outdated. Operating systems and technology in general have progressed and continue to progress so quickly that the skills required for use should have evolved along with the technology. If technical readiness is software related, then the term, technical readiness, will continue to be ill-defined. Dabbagh (2007) identifies the ability to exhibit fluency in use of online technologies as one of the characteristics of a good online learner. This is a useful way of describing technical readiness but fails to define what fluency would look like. Guglielmino and Guglielmino (2003) divide technical readiness into four components, knowledge, attitude, skills, and habits (KASH), with each component having a unique aspect of technical readiness. KASH is focused more on the learner than on the technology, and this is a useful way to approach learner characteristics since technology is constantly changing. The focus of KASH is appropriate, but the outcomes may vary based on the type of media or modality being utilized. For example, technical habits in a self-paced module may differ from those in a tutor-led online course. There are so many variations in contexts and learner situations that it is difficult to point to what is advantageous. Rosenberg (2001) gives an example of e-Learning which was delivered as a single question every morning to supermarket workers. The simpler the e-Learning solution, the less technical skill is needed.

Learner Characteristics and Skills

79

Piskurich (2004) implies that people with the “requisite knowledge, attitudes, skills and habits in technology” will be more successful at e-Learning. However, nowhere in the literature is there a minimum skills requirement expressly stated for e-Learning. It, therefore, might be more worthwhile to focus less on specific technical skills and more on the attributes that learners bring, such as a positive attitude to change, since the degree of technical readiness cannot always be predetermined. Chapnick (2000) identifies technical readiness as a broader idea, reviewing all aspects of the learner related to use of technological tools. In this context, self-efficacy and attitudes toward technology may be worthwhile areas for inclusion when considering the idea of e-Learning readiness. One of the major barriers to acceptance of e-Learning has been the resistance to this format of training delivery. The move from traditional face-to-face approaches brings with it questions about the validity of e-Learning as an instructional format (Harfoushi et  al. (2010)). Although much has been written about the futility of exploring the “significant difference” between e-Learning and face-to-face teaching when all other things are equal (Li et al., 2014; Lockee et al., 1999), general attitudes toward e-Learning persist, with at least some of them based on people’s ideas and beliefs about e-Learning as compared to traditional instruction. Many studies have been done to gauge the barriers related to learner attitudes with respect to e-Learning and its effect on e-Learning adoption. Findings include learner satisfaction (Ho & Dzeng, 2010), computer self-efficacy (Ibrahim et al., 2017), and attitudes toward technology use (Ho & Dzeng, 2010). These barriers have implications for e-Learning design and should be carefully considered in planning instruction. Computer self-efficacy describes how the learner perceives their own skills in relation to computers. This has been studied extensively. Additionally, this idea of computer self-efficacy has been intertwined with employees’ previous experiences using technology in other areas of work. Ibrahim et al. (2017) conclude that computer self-efficacy has positive effects on perceived ease of use in e-Learning. They also found that perceived ease of use has a positive effect on the intention to use e-Learning. Purnomo and Lee (2013) found that since workers in a bank were used to using computers for everyday tasks, their computer self-efficacy was high compared to those using computers for e-Learning only. The assumption is that if learners have prior experiences using computers, there should be a transfer of attitudes and skills to e-Learning. However, Schreurs et  al. (2008) recognized that even though employees have experience using computers, they have little experience using e-Learning. This lack of experience initially affected their ability to use e-Learning packages. This conclusion suggests that e-Learning may require a different skill set compared to other computer tasks. Technology competence seems to be closely tied with the specific requirements of the organization and not necessarily directly related to utilizing e-Learning. Wang (2018) suggests that learner readiness should include not only self-efficacy but motivation and the ability to adapt to technological challenges. Chong et  al. (2004) found continuous adoption is tied to long-term motivational factors such as promotion. So, while users are influenced by the technological environment, continuous use may be tied to other motivational elements.

80

8  Learner Readiness

Therefore, as much as the term technical readiness is used in the literature, there is no exact definition of this. This type of readiness seems to be tied closely with the requirements of the organization. Other factors such as self-efficacy, motivation, and the ability to adapt to challenges posed by technology appear to influence learner readiness. Based on these discussions, it can be concluded that a variety of personal factors have an influence on e-Learning readiness for learners.

Survey D: Learner Readiness

Learner Survey Its purpose is to determine: • Learner role in the organization. • Personal readiness and attitude toward e-Learning. • Organizational support of the learner.

The main purpose of this survey is to determine the general readiness of learners. Throughout the surveys, there is a distinction made between learning and training. Learner readiness is assessed through the attitudes toward training, learning, and e-Learning generally. Training is an event or process where employees develop skills and knowledge that are expected to be useful for improving performance in the organizational environment (Swinney, 2007). Training is usually instructor centered. Learning is acquisition of skills and knowledge that learners acquire that can be used not only in a work situation but throughout life. The survey seeks to determine, firstly, how the learners understand themselves and their position within the organization; secondly, their personal self-efficacy, in terms of how they feel about learning and training in general, as well as their attitudes toward e-Learning; and finally, the ability of learners to access the resources and their willingness to use them. Learners’ thoughts about their own personal learning culture, which is closely related to determining learner self-efficacy, are also explored. This section generally captures attitudes toward various aspects of learning. It is designed to determine learners’ willingness to participate in learning activities, generally, and e-Learning, specifically. Willingness to participate in new initiatives, not only e-Learning, is captured by the questions “Do you participate in learning activities when they are available? Do you participate in e-Learning activities when they are available?”. Table 8.1 shows the learner readiness survey.

Survey D: Learner Readiness

81

Table 8.1  The learner readiness survey Categories Organizational goals

Personal learning culture

Organizational learning culture

Finance

Question 1. Is there a mission/vision for your organization? 2. Has the organization done learning activities before? 3. Do you see the relationship between the organizational goals and the learning activities? 4. Do you see the relationship between training and your job? 5. How do you think e-Learning can be useful to your organization reaching its goals? 1. How do you know your alearning has been successful? 2. Do you think learning is useful to you? 3. Do you think btraining is useful to you? 4. What motivates you to participate in learning activities? 5. Do you participate in learning activities when they are available? 6. Do you normally take part when the organization introduces new ideas/products? 7. Do you have any experience with e-Learning? 8. Do you understand what e-Learning is? 9. Do you think that you are ready to use e-Learning? 10. What will determine whether you use e-Learning or not?. 1. What is done in your organization to encourage learning? 2. Does your organization provide opportunities for learning outside of formal training activities? 3. What incentives are offered to participate in learning activities? 4. Do your managers/supervisors encourage your participation in learning activities?

5. Are you given opportunities to apply what you have learned to your job? 1. Do you currently pay for your own job-related training? 2. Are you willing to pay for your own training?

Response ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Do not know ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ No

☐ Training is useful to my job Please list your answer here Explain here ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ No State your answer below ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Other (please state) ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Other (please state) State your answer below Please list ☐ Yes ☐ No If yes, please list Please give your answer here ☐ Supervisors/managers support training learning ☐ Supervisors/managers do not support training learning ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Other (please state) ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Other (please state) ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Other (please state) (continued)

82

8  Learner Readiness

Table 8.1 (continued) Categories Technology

Question 1. How do you use computers in your daily tasks? 2. What times are you likely to do training? 3. What type of device do you use at work? 4. What type of device do you currently own?

Response Please state State here Please state Tick all that apply ☐ Computer ☐ Tablet ☐ Smart phone ☐ Other (Specify) State here

5. What personal barriers do you expect with respect to computer technology if you are to use e-Learning? 6. What organizational barriers do you expect State here with respect to computer technology if you are to use e-Learning? State here 7. What is your experience with maintenance and updates of computers in your organization?

Definition of Learning: Learning is acquisition of skills and knowledge that learners acquire and can be used not only in a work situation but throughout life Training: Training is an event or process where employees develop skills and knowledge that are expected to be useful for improving performance in the organizational environment (Swinney, 2007)

a

References Becker, K., Newton, C., & Sawang, S. (2013). A learner perspective on barriers to e-learning. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 53(2), 211–233. Brown, J.  S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. Chapnick, S. (2000). Needs assessment for E-learning. ASTD. Chong, B., Martinsons, M.  G., & Wong, M. (2004). Adoption of e-learning for work-based training: An exploratory study of the Hong Kong apparel industry. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 1(3), 312–326. Dabbagh, N. (2007). The online learner: Characteristics and pedagogical implications. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 7(3), 217–226. Derouin, R.  E., Fritzsche, B.  A., & Salas, E. (2005). E-learning in organizations. Journal of Management, 31(6), 920–940. Dewey, J. (1986). Experience and education. The Educational Forum, 50(3), 241–252. Floyd, T. (2003). Analyzing the organization’s need for e-learning. In G. M. Piskurich (Ed.), The AMA handbook of e-learning: Effective design, implementation, and technology solutions (pp. 87–98). American Management Association International. Gallardo-Echenique, E. E., de Oliveira, J. M., Marqués-Molias, L., Esteve-Mon, F., Wang, Y., & Baker, R. (2015). Digital competence in the knowledge society. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(1). Gilbert, T.  F. (1978). Human competence—Engineering worthy performance. NSPI Journal, 17(9), 19–27.

References

83

Guglielmino, L. M., & Guglielmino, P. J. (2003). Identifying learners who are ready for e-­learning and supporting their success. In G.  M. Piskurich (Ed.), Preparing learners for e-learning (pp. 19–34). American Management Association International. Harfoushi, O. K., Obiedat, R. F., & Khasawneh, S. S. (2010). E-learning adoption inside Jordanian organizations from change management perspective. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 5(2), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v5i2.1260 Ho, C.-L., & Dzeng, R.-J. (2010). Construction safety training via e-Learning: Learning effectiveness and user satisfaction. Computers & Education, 55(2), 858–867. Ibrahim, R., Leng, N. S., Yusoff, R. C. M., Samy, G. N., Masrom, S., & Rizman, Z. I. (2017). Elearning acceptance based on technology acceptance model (TAM). Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, 9(4S), 871–889. Li, F., Qi, J., Wang, G., & Wang, X. (2014). Traditional classroom vs e-learning in higher education: Difference between students’ behavioral engagement. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 9(2), 48–51. Knowles, M. (1978). The adult learner: A neglected species (2nd ed.). Gulf Publishing Company. Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (5th ed.). Gulf Publishing Company. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning:experience as a source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey Prentice-Hall. Lockee, B. B., Burton, J. K., & Cross, L. H. (1999). No comparison: Distance education finds a new use for ‘no significant difference’. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 33–42. Piskurich, G. M. (2004). Preparing learners for e-learning. John Wiley & Sons. Purnomo, S., & Lee, Y.  H. (2013). E-learning adoption in the banking workplace in Indonesia: An empirical study. Information Development, 29(2), 138–153. https://doi. org/10.1177/0266666912448258 Rosenberg, M.  J. (2001). E-learning: Strategies for delivering knowledge in the digital age. McGraw-Hill. Schreurs, J., Sammour, G., & Ehlers, U. (2008). ERA-E-learning readiness analysis: A eHealth case study of E-learning readiness. In M. D. Lytras, J. M. Carroll, E. Damiani, R. D. Tennyson, D. Avison, G. Vossen, & P. Ordonez De Pablos (Eds.), The open knowledge society. A computer science and information systems manifesto (pp. 267–275). Springer. Swinney, J. M. (2007). One more time: What training is— And isn’t. Performance Improvement, 46(5), 6–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.127 Waight, C. L., & Stewart, B. L. (2005). Valuing the adult learner in e-learning: Part two -insights from four companies. Journal of Workplace Learning, 17(5/6), 398–414. https://doi. org/10.1108/13665620510606805 Wang, M. (2018). E-learning in the workplace. Springer.

Chapter 9

How to Use the e-Learning Readiness Tool

Introduction The e-Learning readiness tool consists of a series of surveys aimed at gathering information from various parts of the organization. Surveys A–C focus on establishing the existence of support systems in terms of the organizational environment, human resources and capacity, and technology and practice, while Survey D can help determine learner readiness. The information from the surveys is expected to feed into checklists E1–E3. The three checklists help collate the data into a format that facilitates easy decision-making on what is needed for e-Learning readiness, eventually establishing whether there is readiness within each area of support. This chapter begins with a brief recap of the structure of the tool. This is followed by a step-by-step description of how to use the tool, illustrated with example data. The chapter also includes a some recommendations for outcomes that might arise from administering the tool, along with reflective questions to guide decisions related to the findings. And finally, the chapter includes examples of questions that may influence decision making for adopting e-Learning.

Using the e-Learning Readiness Tool Survey and Checklists As already established, the purpose of the surveys is to collect information from various perspectives within an organization to make a judgment on the readiness of the organization to adopt e-Learning as a means of instructional delivery. The tool can be applied both within organizations in the initial stages of deciding and those who have already adopted e-Learning. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. James-Springer, K. Cennamo, A Tool for Determining e-Learning Readiness, SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76994-9_9

85

86 Fig. 9.1 e-Learning readiness tool surveys

9  How to Use the e-Learning Readiness Tool

Survey A - Organizational Environment Survey B - Human Resources and Capacity Survey C - Technology and Practice Survey D - Learner

Figure 9.1 presents a summary of the surveys. The structure of the surveys is described in detail in Chap. 4, and the rationale and questions for each survey have been described in Chaps. 5, 6, 7, and 8. It is important to note that although the surveys appear to be separate in their data collection on implementation, there will be connections in many areas. For example, though leadership support appears to stand as a category on its own, it is inherently a part of the general  machinery within an  organization which supports the learning culture of the organization. The availability of, and access to, the technology tools heavily influence the decisions and format of content that is to be used in e-Learning. These connections are recognized in the final checklists which bring all the information together. The purpose of the checklists and recommendations is so that anyone using the surveys can collate the information into an easy-to-use format for reporting. The categories within the checklists are aligned with Surveys A–D. The checklists have been designed in such a way to ease the amount of information which gets to the decision-making level within the organization. Figure 9.2 illustrates the relationship between Surveys A–D and the checklists and recommendations, E1–E3.

How to Use the Tool Using this tool is a three-step process, as described below. Step 1. Choose Target Group  The four readiness analysis surveys are designed to be administered to the relevant participants. Its various parts are targeted toward different target groups within the organization, as outlined here. • Environmental readiness survey A: leaders (CEOs, upper- and mid-level managers). • Human resource and capacity survey B: human resource professionals. • Technology and practice survey C: information technology professionals, e-Learning professionals. • Learner readiness survey D: employees.

Using the e-Learning Readiness Tool

87

Fig. 9.2  The relationship between Surveys A–D and checklists and recommendations

In the literature regarding e-Learning readiness, the information gathered in most instances focused on only one group within organizations; for example, a survey may focus on leader opinions or the human resource manager’s opinion. These surveys are designed to get a holistic opinion of the readiness of the organization and so may be administered to anyone who is responsible for supporting the various parts of the e-Learning system. Since the tool is designed to be  flexible,  and to be  applied to many contexts, it is understood  that the structure and dynamics of departments may vary. In particular, the leadership structure or human resource structure may not be as straightforward in reality as in the survey. The survey which targets leaders, depending on the organization, may need to be administered in different ways, particularly if the organization has various levels of leadership. And in some organizations, the department we recognize as the human resource department does not exist or has a different name, but within the organization that function would still exist. Step 2. Administer the Surveys  The methods for administering the tool may vary from organization to organization. The content of the surveys may be adapted for individual interviews and focus groups or administered as full surveys. The decision on how to administer a particular survey would depend on the structure of the organization and how the target groups are distributed. Additionally, access to some individuals may determine the methods used in obtaining the data. For example, a large organization may choose to convert the surveys into electronic format, while a smaller organization may utilize interviews or paper-based surveys. Depending on the context, it may be possible to send out the surveys as questionnaires (likely with

88

9  How to Use the e-Learning Readiness Tool

the learner survey) or, in some instances, administer them as individual interviews or within focus groups. Step 3. Compile Survey Data into Checklists  Once the data is collected, it is compiled into checklists E1–E3 to decide on readiness, using the checklists and recommendations as a guide. Information tallied from the Surveys A–D is used to fill in checklists E1–E3; thus the answers to the questions in E1–E3 are based on responses from the Surveys A–D.  The associated recommendations serve as a baseline to determine the level of readiness as well as provide ideas for improvements where e-Learning has already been adopted. The checklists and associated recommendations are available in Appendix B.

How to Use the Data from Surveys The sequence for utilizing the data collected from the surveys is like a feedback loop. The data is collected by the designated department or individual, collated, and analyzed. The conclusions are reflected and translated in the checklist. Since the parts of the checklist are categorized, an organization may choose to address an individual part of the organization to make it e-Learning ready or to modify the entire organization based on the findings. Figure 9.3 shows the sequence of activities leading up to determining e-Learning readiness. To illustrate the relationship between Surveys A–D, the final checklist, and the recommendations, the next section presents a set of sample data (adapted from James-Springer, 2016) and hypothetical conclusions about how the data might be used. These examples illustrate how the tool could be used, beginning with the surveys and ending with the decisions to be made from the checklist. The figures use examples from the headings within the surveys.

Fig. 9.3  The sequence involved in using the e-Learning readiness tool

Using the e-Learning Readiness Tool

89

Questions from survey

Possible Survey Responses

Tally from Final Checklist

• Is there a mission and vision? • Are there clear organizational goals? • Is there a clear understanding of the strategic direction by stakeholders? •How will e-Learning be useful to the organization?

• Aware of the relationship between organizational goals learning and training • Has an e-Learning definition • Aware of how useful e-Learning can be to the organization

• Mission/Vision exists • Everyone is aware of the mission/vision • Training is linked to the performance improvement • e-Learning will assist with achieving performance goals

Recommendation • Performance goals should be linked to organizational goals which in turn is related to the type of content and choice technology • n the organization. • e-Learning will help with organizational training plan and goals. e-Learning can be one of many performance solutions to address performance needs.

Judgement of readiness • Organization is ready - performance goals are linked to organizational goals training is linked to performance imporvement - the of purpose and role of e-Learning is understood

Fig. 9.4  An example of use of the tool in judging readiness of organizational goals using checklist E1

Organizational Environment Readiness  Figure 9.4 presents an example of the use of the tool to judge readiness of organizational goals. Each survey (A–D) has questions that are related to organizational goals, and the responses to those questions are transposed to the checklist. From the hypothetical responses, it is possible to determine whether the stakeholders within the organization are knowledgeable about the links between organizational goals and performance expectations. Eventually, based on the responses, appropriate recommendations are given ­followed by a judgment of readiness for that category. The information from the checklist allows a quick evaluation. Figure 9.4 shows recommendations for readiness through links between organizational goal, performance goals, and training goals. If there is no relationship between organizational goals, performance goals, and training goals, this aspect of the organization needs to be revisited. If the organization is to be judged as ready, then these three goals should be related. Human Resources and Capacity Readiness  Figure 9.5 illustrates how the tool can be used to judge whether an organization is ready in the category of knowledge management (KM). The questions for this section focus on determining whether knowledge management exists, what information about employees is available, and how this information can be translated into content design. The organization illustrated in this example is not ready because processes are not in place to track employee information. The information is not readily available to managers or employees. The literature recommendations are that good KM requires a process for tracking employee information. This can help inform how content can be designed to improve learner competency with relation to e-Learning. For this organization to be ready, it has to specify departmental responsibilities with respect to employee information and put processes in place for this to become accessible.

90

9  How to Use the e-Learning Readiness Tool

Questions

Survey Responses

• Is employee • There is information knowledge and skill on employees are information available? scattered, several departments are • What are the training responsible for policies? managing the • How will e-Learning information and there affect training is little policies? communication or integration of processes • Employees have fair knowledge of their skills, competencies and courses taken but have no way of accessing or tracking their progress. • Training policies exist but are not related to e-Learning

Final Checklist

Recommendation

Judgement of readiness

• HR tracks employee • Good knowledge • Organization needs to knowledge, skills, management knows do some work here competencies where knowledge is in • devise a plan to [remains unchecked] the organization and integrate processes who needs it through • HR is aware of and get employee tracking employee employee skills and information in one training progress and competencies place skills. This [remains unchecked] • employees need to be information should be • HR tracks training able to access their available in HR courses employees information and track records. It also is a have taken [remains their progress. good platform for unchecked] • think about how eindividualized career • Training policies need Learning will be tracking. upgrading designed to meet • Training policy needs individual needs in to be updated, to order to upgrade reference and reflect employee, knowledge, use of technology and skills and competency set standards for to use e-Learning learning accountability. and access. • Plan several levels of content to allow employees to reach required skills and competencies to use e-Learning.

Fig. 9.5  An example of the use of the e-Learning readiness tool in judging knowledge management using checklist E2

Questions

Survey Responses

Final Checklist

Recommendation

• What is the • Positive attitudes • e-Learning should • Generally positive department's general toward e-Learning drive the technology/ attitudeds to eattitude toward eLearning • Several barriers have not the other way Learning? around. Technology been considered • Barriers can be • What are the identified or have • Computer technology choice is context anticipated barriers to been considered and is adequate to support specific. accessing e-Learning? possbilities for e-Learning or there is • Understanding barriers and available overcoming them • What is the current a willingness to technologies allow technology holdings? suggested. upgrade for understanding the • The is an inventory of existing gaps organizational • Adopt the simplest holdings with regard form of technology to computer suitable for context, technology. resources and can solve the performance problem.

Judgement of readiness • Organization is ready • The department is ready to support the initative • organization is willing to facilitate access through prchasing or upgrading to the enecssary technology

Fig. 9.6  An example of the use of the e-Learning readiness tool in judging technology readiness using checklist E3

Technology and Practice Readiness  Figure 9.6 looks at technology readiness from the perspective of infrastructure. This example captures the general attitude toward e-Learning as well as the perceived barriers and the current infrastructure of the organization. Survey responses indicate a generally positive attitude in the depart-

Using the e-Learning Readiness Tool

Questions

Survey Responses

• How do you use • Considered Computer technology in your technology is always daily tasks? used in daily tasks • What do you think of • e-Learning is just e-Learning as a way of another way of learning? learning • Do you think you are • Generally ready to ready to use euse e-Learning, it will Learning? help me grow • What are the • There may be many anticipated barriers to barriers to e-Learning accessing e-Learning? including the ability to connect to the • What will determine system or having whether you will use devices that we can e-Learning or not? use. • If I am given time during work

91

Final Checklist

Recommendation

Judgement of readiness

• All learners are • Employees should • Organization is ready familiar with have/be given the • there are generally computer technology necessary tools to positive attitudes for work access e-Learning. toward e-Learning • Most see e-Learning • Previous computer • as a other way of experience related to Barriers have been considered and can learning better attitudes plan for overcoming toward using e• Employees have it positive attitudes with Learning. respect to e-Learning • The identified barriers can be overcome

Fig. 9.7  An example of the use of the e-Learning readiness tool learner readiness using checklist E2

ment and include information on available infrastructure, barriers to e-Learning, and establishing e-Learning. The final checklist indicates that the infrastructure is adequate to support e-Learning. The recommendations would include adoption of the simplest technology format that can give consistent quality. The organization can be deemed ready if there are positive attitudes, and the necessary resources are available. Learner Readiness  Figure 9.7 illustrates learner responses for some elements of learner readiness. These include use of computer technology, attitudes toward e-Learning, and willingness to use e-Learning. Survey responses should include information on these areas and give a sense of the learner attitudes. The checklist E2 should collate the information to determine whether the concerns expressed by learners can be overcome. The recommendations are related to previous computer experience and willingness to use e-Learning.

Reflecting on the Outcomes The design of the surveys establishes the relationship between support systems of an organization and e-Learning. Much of the data to be gathered are aimed at gaining an understanding of the basic systems within an organization. Responses reflect a combination of various aspects of the system which will assist in determining readiness. The tool is designed to assess both existing and new e-Learning adoption, and it is possible to deduce both full and partial readiness. Since the e-Learning readiness tool serves as a gap analysis, organizations can determine whether they are willing to deal with the areas which have proven to be unready in parts or as a whole as a way of implementing e-Learning successfully.

92

9  How to Use the e-Learning Readiness Tool

Table 9.1  Examples of decision-making questions Support system

Category Organizational environment

Human resources

Technology

Learner

Readiness

Questions to be considered based on emerging data 1. Can the existing strategic direction sustain e-Learning? 2. Does the organizational environment support learning and by extension e-Learning? 3. How will e-Learning activities be budgeted or included? 4. Who will be responsible for disbursing funds? 1. Is there a need to update information management practices to accommodate e-Learning? 2. Should e-Learning be outsourced based on the skills evaluation? 1. What is needed to overcome foreseen barriers to sustaining e-Learning? 2. How will the organization update and maintain e-Learning? 3. Is there a department with the necessary skills to sustain e-Learning? 1. How should the organization address the learner attitudes and self-efficacy in using e-Learning? 2. How will the organization support learners? 3. How will the organization design content to meet the needs of learners?

Table 9.1 outlines some of the decision-making questions that may emerge based on the outcomes of the tool. The answers to these questions can help in formulating a determination of readiness in each of the areas within the tool. These questions can serve as a self-reflection, and the answers should help decide how to move forward.

Reference James-Springer, C. (2016). Building a tool for determining e-learning readiness of organizations: A design and development study (Doctoral Dissertation).. Retrieved from https://vtechworks. lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/70912/JamesSpringer_CD_D_2016.pdf;sequence=2

Chapter 10

Implications of Using the Tool

Introduction This chapter discusses the implications of the data compiled in the e-Learning readiness tools for content decisions and how the broader findings can affect instructional design solutions related to content. The determination of readiness influences the eventual effectiveness of the system through the design and delivery output established to satisfy organizational needs, as these instructional interventions are ultimately dependent on the type of content and how it is delivered.

Implications of Decisions for Content Design The objective of the surveys, generally, is to determine e-Learning readiness using various criteria, but the long-term implications of these findings eventually affect decisions on how to design instructional interventions that can effectively address performance gaps (see Fig. 10.1). Content is dependent on the overall goals and expectations of the organization. These are planned activities linked to the expected learning and training to take place. The expectation is that the performance goals are achieved in an environment which facilitates and supports employees’ use of the skills and knowledge attained. The structure of content should enable learners, as adult learners, to make decisions about their own learning. This could include giving learners the option to use a variety of content formats or the possibility of stacking achievements so that learners can work at their own pace in moving through levels. Content decisions also are affected by the infrastructural capacity, in that it affects the types and design of the content delivered. Content that includes the heavy use of video or multimedia may not be appropriate if the necessary infrastructure to © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. James-Springer, K. Cennamo, A Tool for Determining e-Learning Readiness, SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76994-9_10

93

94

10  Implications of Using the Tool

Survey Responses

Checklist

Content Decisions

Fig. 10.1  The relationship of survey responses to instructional design decisions

support it is not available. Additionally, if learners do not have the appropriate devices and connectivity that can support downloading, viewing, and using the content, these may not be appropriate solutions. The infrastructural capacity is extremely important as it will determine the capacity of the organization to address the needs of the organization. Another question is whether learners have appropriate devices to access the system. Access issues include: • • • •

Appropriate devices. Connectivity to the system. The system’s ability to deliver the e-Learning content. Quality and reliability of the system.

These access considerations determine or guide the types of content that should be designed. Additional considerations include the ability of the organization to archive and store information which needs to be accessed by learners. Storage systems are important in facilitating continuous access to materials, and heavy multimedia content takes up more space. Cloud storage technologies can provide ease of access for file storage, database management, and resource storage (Olokunde & Misra, 2015). Content decisions should also cater to the skills and attitudes of learners. It may be necessary to factor in activities which allow for learners to become comfortable with the system. This may include design of content which can be self-paced, instructor-taught blended approaches, or help desk facilities to allow learners to utilize materials or study at their own pace while having the necessary support. The content can be designed in a way that facilitates inclusion of incentives motivating learners to continue and complete exercises or that allows employees to start, stop, and return to content at any point. To design high-quality and appropriate content, the human resource capacity within the organization may require individuals with specialized skills such as instructional designers and content development experts to ensure that standards are met for smooth delivery and  understandable learning  materials.  Overall, the data collected in the tool eventually lays the foundation for the development and delivery of high-quality, appropriate, and effective content. The content is influenced broadly by the overall strategic direction of the organization, while on a micro-level, guided by the learner requirements and performance goals.

Reference

95

Reference Olokunde, T., & Misra, S. (2015). Towards a cloud-based data storage medium for E-learning Systems in Developing Countries. In R.  Intan, C.  H. Chi, H.  Palit, & L.  Santoso (Eds.), Intelligence in the era of big data. ICSIIT 2015. Communications in computer and information science (Vol. vol 516). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­662-­46742-­8_42

Chapter 11

Challenges and Future Opportunities

The External Context and e-Learning Readiness The tool is designed to collect data aimed at identifying gaps within the context of a specific organization. Yet it has been designed to be used in many contexts. Much of the research done on e-Learning readiness is available either for higher education or for various workplaces. Since this initial research was conducted regarding e-Learning readiness, the challenge of finding research or recorded case study applications of e-Learning remains a challenge. The results of the initial pilot of the tool showed that understanding the broader context of the organization which aims to implement e-Learning is essential. The context of the society in which e-Learning takes place includes “culture, traditions, rules and regulations” (Aung & Khaing, 2016, p.408). This may act as the limitation or guide for how e-Learning can be rolled out eventually. The variations in context would include factors such as the size of the organization, the location of the organization, and the resources available for implementation of e-Learning. e-Learning may pose challenges in a workplace simply because of the country where it is located. The contextual differences which exist between developed and developing countries are such a variation that may be an added consideration as e-Learning adoption is considered. This may affect the resources available external to the organization. The United Nations defines developing nations as low-income or lower-to-­ middle economies, based on their gross national income. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) considers various factors including per capita income, export diversification, and degree of integration into global financial systems. Even within these definitions, there may exist variations such as the economies, levels of poverty, and small island status. Each dynamic includes varying realities (Country Classifications in the United Nations, 2014). Regardless of the definition, there are some unique challenges for developing nations  regarding their ability to uptake and integrate educational technology into the day-to-day learning systems. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. James-Springer, K. Cennamo, A Tool for Determining e-Learning Readiness, SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76994-9_11

97

98

11  Challenges and Future Opportunities

The OECD states that  “Highspeed, affordable broadband connectivity holds widely recognized promise for social and economic development” (OECD, 2017, p. 148), yet the cost, stability, and availability of connectivity and infrastructure are some of the challenges faced in establishing proper structures that would facilitate growth through use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). The uptake and use of ICTs are growing globally, but at the same time, there continues to be inequities among countries regarding speed of access (ITU, 2018). This growth is faster in more developed countries than in developing countries, where rate of uptake is significantly slower. With the emergence of mobile cellular services, the increase in mobile networks has resulted in increased penetration. Mobile networks have improved from delivering only voice services to now delivering data and high-­speed access (OECD, 2017). Why is this important for e-Learning? The increase in mobile networks also would relate to the kinds of devices available for use. As much as the tool is developed for use within an organization, the external context remains important since it may directly influence the ability for e-Learning adoption. Additional considerations besides the physical aspects related to ICT would include the socioeconomic and educational status of the geographic location. These factors are not unique to developing countries but play an important role in determining who gets to, and is willing to, use the technologies. Culturally relevant content and learning materials may also be a challenge for organizations which may be geographically dispersed or for organizations established in less developed countries. This may present challenges for designing standardized and relatable materials. Language competencies also represent contextual challenges, given that many learning materials exist only in English (Aung & Khaing, 2016). Simply implementing e-Learning may not be sufficient if the appropriate environment does not exist to encourage use and uptake. Employees are not likely to only use e-Learning within the organization, and even then, if the external conditions such as connectivity and reliability of connections are not present, it is likely that the initiative may be in jeopardy. External factors that may impact implantation include: • • • •

Costs associated with establishing the necessary infrastructure. Internet penetration. Availability of appropriate devices. Awareness about and cultural attitudes toward technology.

COVID-19 exposed many of the disparities related to use of computer technology in societies; these disparities have implications for the use of e-Learning. This opens many new areas of research related to e-Learning and readiness.

References

99

Further Research in e-Learning Readiness When this research was originally carried out, it exposed the need for further studies in the area. This was particularly glaring in the age and variety of literature available on e-Learning readiness that was available then, and this dearth in literature remains to date; there is still limited literature related to the areas identified in this book in relation to determining e-Learning readiness in workplaces. Additionally, many related deficiencies were exposed when workplaces had to move to remote work due to COVID-19. The need to understand more about e-Learning became transparent with the plethora of webinars that were offered after the virus outbreak. Opportunities for research include: • Exploring changes in policies to accommodate the shift to e-Learning instruction. • Exploring the ways in which the challenges of obtaining the necessary infrastructure to facilitate e-Learning have been solved. • Exploring ways in which return on investment has been calculated and viewed. The current world climate has exposed the need and usefulness of this tool as a practical data collection instrument. The data yielded from its use can guide further plans to utilize e-Learning as well as help organizations looking to newly implement e-Learning.

References Aung, T. N., & Khaing, S. S. (2016). Challenges of implementing e-learning in developing countries: A review. In T. Zin, J. W. Lin, J. S. Pan, P. Tin, & M. Yokota (Eds.), Genetic and evolutionary computing. GEC 2015. Advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol. 388). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­23207-­2_41 Broadband Commission. (2018).The state of broadband 2018: Broadband catalyzing sustainable development. International Telecommunications Union, Switzerland. OECD/World Trade Organization. (2017). Spanning the internet divide to drive development. Aid for trade at a glance 2017: Promoting trade, inclusiveness and connectivity for sustainable development. World Trade Organization, Geneva/OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi. org/10.1787/aid:glance-­2017-­8-­en. United Nations. (2014). Country classification. World Economic Situation and Prospects 2014. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wesp/wesp_current/2014wesp_country_classification.pdf

Appendix A

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. James-Springer, K. Cennamo, A Tool for Determining e-Learning Readiness, SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76994-9

101

1. Performance goals should be linked to organizational goals which in turn is related to the type of content and choice of technology 2. Employees should see the link between their jobs and training within the organization 3. e-Learning can be one of many performance solutions to address performance needs

1. Leadership support is key- leaders/managers need experience or understand the e-Learning systems to become “champions,” possible orientation for managers 2. Managers need to create opportunity for application of learnt material – transfer of learning 3. It is important to know who make the e-Learning decisions in order to know who to ask the correct questions

Decision-makers identified Definitions of learning success is the like employees Leaders create opportunity to use new knowledge and skills Leadership has a positive attitude toward e-Learning Learning is supported in the organization

Leadership support 1. Who will make the e-Learning decisions? 2. How do organizational leaders define e-Learning success? 3. What are the views of leaders on learning/training incentives? 4. What are the views of organization leaders on organizational learning? 5. What are the views of organization leaders on e-Learning?

Judgement of readiness Recommendations

Mission/vision exists Everyone is aware of the mission/vision The relationship between performance expectations and organizational goals is understood e-Learning value is understood

Checklist

Organizational Organizational goals Environment 1. Is there a mission and vision? 2. Are there clear organizational goals? 3. Is there a clear understanding of goals and the strategic direction by stakeholders? 4. How will e-Learning be useful to the organization?

Support Systems

Organizational Environment Support

Final Checklist and Recommendations

1. There should be consensus on the definition of e-Learning and e-Learning success is required since e-Learning is highly contextualized. Differences lead to confusion in relation to where money is to be spent 2. A positive attitude toward learning in general 3. Employees can see how information is useful to them no matter what the medium 4. Organization can create opportunity for learning. Use both formal and informal activities to connect learning to work e-Learning can become part of work conditions 5. Provide incentives in the form of time allocation, promotion and recognition, flexibility of time for studying during the workday, employees play a role in the process 6. Content design can facilitate incentives –modular format, employees can start, stop, and return to content at any point 7. Past responses to change may be indicators of future adoption 8. Good communication, promotion, and organizational strategies need to be considered – change management plan 9. Start with a pilot project. Start small. Implement e-Learning slowly, begin with a pilot project involving one department 10 Sell e-Learning from the point of individual gains and benefits 11. Develop a strategic e-Learning plan 12. System is reliable and of high quality 1. Calculate both return on investment (ROI) and Return on Expectation (ROE) 2. Consider personnel needed for design & development, administer, technology, manage, maintain, and support delivery, distribution and marketing, time in terms of productivity 3. An assessment/ assessment plan should be in place to determine whether e-Learning has met its objectives 4. Weigh employee roles in terms of purchase of hardware/software and payment for e-Learning

There is variation in performance solutions There are positive attitudes toward learning There is a common definition for learning and e-Learning success Employees see the value of learning Organization provides learning incentives Time allocation Promotion and recognition Other Organization considers work /life balance Organization has considered arrangements for training with e-Learning New initiatives gradually implemented Employees are/were supportive of new initiatives There is good communication on initiatives Plan for employee or “buy in”

Who controls the budget for learning and training is clear Who controls the e-Learning budget is clear All elements of e-Learning budget are considered including personnel, equipment needed Initiatives have been assessed and evaluated in the past

Learning culture: 1. What types of learning/training methods have been used in the past? 2. How is organizational learning generally viewed? 3. What are general attitudes toward learning? 4. What are general attitudes toward e-Learning? 5. What learning incentives does the organization offer? 6. How does the organization encourage learning? 7. How has the organization handled new initiatives in the past? And with what success?

Finance: 1. Who controls the learning/training budget? 2. Who will make financial decisions related to e-Learning? 3. What are the anticipated costs associated with e-Learning? 4. Are initiatives evaluated?

Support systems Organizational Training Environment 1. Is a training plan in place within the organization? 2. What is the goal of training in the organization? (What is the objective of training?) 3. How is learning/training linked to performance improvement? 4. How will e-Learning be useful to the organization? Information tracking 1. Is employee knowledge and skill information available? 2. What are the training policies? 3. How will e-Learning affect training policies? HR tracks employee knowledge, skills, competencies HR is knowledgeable about employee skills and competencies HR tracks training courses employees have taken Training policies are in place

Checklist There is a training plan The goal of training is related to the vision and mission Training is linked to a performance improvement The role of e-Learning in relation to organizational goals is understood

Human Resources and Learner Readiness

Final Checklist and Recommendations

Comments

1. Good knowledge management knows where knowledge is in the organization and who needs it through tracking employee training progress and skills. This information should be available in HR records. It also is a good platform for individualized career tracking 2. Training policy needs to be updated, to reference and reflect use of technology and set standards for learning accountability. A new training policy should include policies on technology, time, and access 3. Plan several levels of content to allow employees to reach required skills and competencies to use e-Learning

Recommendations 1. Any type of knowledge and skill can be taught if it takes advantage of the attributes of the medium and addresses performance goals 2. e-Learning will help with organizational training plan and goals. e-Learning can be one of many performance solutions to address performance needs

104 Appendix A

Human Resources (Learner Readiness)

Human Resources

Skills and knowledge 1. What departments will be involved in the implementation of e-Learning? 2. What departments will be involved in decisions about e-Learning? 3. What personnel will be needed in the various stages e-Learning implementation? 4. What knowledge, competencies and experience of personnel who will be needed for e-Learning? Organizational goals 1. Can employees see the link between their work and organizational goals? Personal learning culture 1. Do learners value learning? 2. Do learners value training initiatives? 3. Are learners willing to take part in new initiatives? Attitudes toward e-Learning 1. What are learners’ attitudes toward e-Learning? Skills and experience 1. Do learners have the necessary technical skills to use e-Learning? 2. Do learners have the necessary devices to use and access e-Learning? 3. Do learners have previous experience with computer technology?

1. A multidepartment approach so that needs of all departments are met. Systems and collaborative thinking 2. Internal development: personnel with the competencies and skill are available or external development: personnel and skill are unavailable 3. Competency test/preassessment to establish technical and prerequisite skills. Varying level of content to accommodate differences in competencies and facilitate up-grading of skills

1. Performance goals should be linked to organizational goals which in turn is related to the type of content and choice of technology 2. Employees should see the link between their jobs and training within the organization 3. Employees should have/be given the necessary tools to access e-Learning 4. Perceived ease of use is related to intention to use computers. Technology should be of high quality and consistent. 5. Perceived ease of use is related to continue using technology 6. Previous computer experience related to better attitudes toward using e-Learning

IT department is part of the initiative People involved are knowledgeable about e-Learning Consensus on what e-Learning should look like Considered whether internal capacity exists for implementation Learners can see the link between their job and the organizational goals Learners can see the link between their performance goals and the organizational goals Learners generally take part in new initiatives Learners have positive attitudes with respect to learning through computer technology Learners have the necessary technical skills to access learning Learners have the necessary equipment and devices to access and use e-Learning Learners have experience with computer technology in their daily functions

Appendix A 105

Appendix A

106

Final Checklist and Recommendations Technology Support systems Technology Existing: 1. What is the department’s general attitude toward e-Learning? 2. What are the anticipated barriers to accessing e-Learning? 3. What is the current computer technology holdings?

Checklist Comments Recommendations 1. e-Learning should drive Individuals have the technology/ not the positive attitudes other way around. toward e-Learning Technology choice is Barriers to access context specific have been 2. Adopt the simplest form considered of technology suitable for Inventory of what context, resources and can exists is available solve the performance problem 3. Understanding barriers and available technologies allow for understanding the existing gaps 1. Maximize the use of Computer Maintenance: current IT infrastructure 1. How is computer technology is 2. Current treatment of technology currently widely utilized in technology is an indicator the organization utilized within the of future treatment (ability Organization organization for to afford) continuously daily tasks? updates and 2. How does the maintains organization computer currently, manage technology update and sustain computer technology? 1. IT department should be IT department is Integration: part of the multidepartment part of the 1. How will the IT team to address their initiative department be concerns. Upgrading of Current system involved in the skills may be necessary to has the capacity e-Learning accommodate learning for integration initiative? technologies 2. Is integration 2. e-Learning technologies considered in should as much as possible purchase of be integrated into existing computer technology to reduce cost. technology? This becomes particularly relevant if content is developed externally

Appendix B: Recommendations

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. James-Springer, K. Cennamo, A Tool for Determining e-Learning Readiness, SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76994-9

107

 ecommendations for the Organizational Environment Based R on the Literature Review

Organizational environment

Support systems Recommendations Organizational 1. Performance goals should be linked to organizational goals goals which in turn is related to the type of content and choice of technology (Borotis et al., 2005; Chuang et al., 2008; McKee, 2006) Leadership 1. Leadership support is key; leaders/managers need support experience or understand the e-Learning systems to become “champions,” possible orientation for managers (Borotis et al., 2005; Steenekamp et al., 2012) 2. Managers need to create opportunity for application of learnt material, transfer of learning (Chen, 2008; Chuang et al., 2008; Schweizer, 2004) 3. It is important to know who make the e-Learning decisions in order to know who to ask the correct questions (Chapnick, 2000; Tai, 2007) 1. There should be consensus on the definition of e-Learning Learning culture and e-Learning success is required since e-Learning is highly contextualized. Differences lead to confusion in relation to where money is to be spent (General Motors University, 2005; Proctor & Gamble, 2005; Tai, 2007) 2. A positive attitude should exist toward learning in general (Tai, 2007;. Waight &. Stewart, 2005) 3. Organizations can create opportunity for learning. Use both formal and informal activities to connect learning to work. e-Learning can become part of work conditions (Chuang et al., 2008; Tai, 2007) 4. Provide incentives in the form of time allocation, promotion and recognition, flexibility of time for studying during the workday. Employees play a role in the process (Chuang et al., 2008; Moshinskie, 2003; Schreurs et al., 2008) 5. Content design can facilitate incentives: for example, modular format, employees can start, stop, and return to content at any point (Waight & Stewart, 2005; Womble, 2007) 6. Good communication, promotion and organizational strategies need to be considered, as well as a change management plan (Welsh et al., 2003) 7. Start with a pilot project. Start small. Implement e-Learning slowly, begin with a pilot project involving one department (Ettinger & Holton, 2005; General Motors University, 2005) 8. Sell e-Learning from the point of individual gains and benefits (Allen, 2008; Waight & Stewart, 2005) 9. Develop a strategic e-Learning plan (Proctor & Gamble, 2005; Tai, 2007) Finance 1. Calculate both return on investment (ROI) and return on expectation (ROE) (Deeny, 2003; Tai, 2007) 2. Consider personnel needed for design and development, to administer technology, manage, maintain, and support delivery, distribution and marketing time needed in terms of productivity (General Motors University, 2005; Waight & Stewart, 2005b) 3. An assessment/ assessment plan should be in place to determine whether e-Learning has met its objectives (Harfoushi et al., 2010; Tai, 2007)

Appendix B: Recommendations

109

 ecommendations for Human Resource and Capacity Based R on the Literature Review

Organizational environment

Support systems Training

Information tracking

Human resources

Skills and knowledge

Recommendations 1. Any type of knowledge and skill can be taught if it takes advantage of the attributes of the medium and addresses performance goals (Barrow, 2003; Chuang et al., 2008; Derouin et al., 2005; Rosenberg, 2007) 2. Training policy needs to be updated, to reference and reflect use of technology and set standards for learning accountability. A new training policy should include policies on technology, time and access (Chuang et al., 2008; Comacchio & Scapolan, 2004) 3. e-Learning will help with organizational training plan and goals. e-Learning can be one of many performance solutions to address performance needs (Borotis et al., 2005; Dai & Duserick, 2007; General Motors University , 2005) 1. Good knowledge management of where knowledge is in the organization and who needs it (Dai & Duserick, 2007; Waight & Stewart, 2005). Information tracking employees training progress and skills should be available in HR records 2. Plan several levels of content to allow employees to reach required competencies (Waight & Stewart, 2005) 1. Adopt a multidisciplinary approach so that needs of all departments are met. Systems and collaborative thinking approach needed (Hall, 2002; Harfoushi et al., 2010; Nakayama et al., 2005; Tai, 2007) 2. Internal development: personnel with the competencies and skill are available. External development: personnel and skill are unavailable (Harfoushi et al., 2010; Proctor & Gamble, 2005;. Waight & Stewart, 2005b) 3. Consider personnel needed for design and development, to administer technology, manage, maintain, and support delivery, distribution and marketing time needed in terms of productivity. (General Motors University, 2005; Waight & Stewart, 2005)

Appendix B: Recommendations

110

Human resources (learner readiness)

Support systems Learner readiness

Recommendations 1. Employees should see the link between their jobs and training within the organization (Annansingh & Bright, 2010; Derouin et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2011) 2. Employees should see how information is useful to them no matter what the medium (Engeström et al., 2007; Waight & Stewart, 2005) 3. Administer competency test/ preassessment to establish technical and prerequisite skills. Vary level of content to accommodate differences in competencies and facilitate up grading of skills (Harfoushi et al., 2010; Waight & Stewart, 2005; Womble, 2007) 4. Employees should have the necessary tools to access e-Learning (Becker et al., 2013; Schreurs et al., 2008) 5. Previous computer experience relates to better attitudes toward using e-Learning (Purnomo & Lee, 2013; Schreurs et al., 2008) 6. Past responses to change may be indicators of future adoption (Rogers, 2003) 7. Perceived ease of use is related to intention to use computers (Purnomo & Lee, 2013; Ramayah et al., 2012) 8. Plan several levels of content to allow employees to reach required competencies (Waight & Stewart, 2005)

 ecommendations for Technology and Practice Based R on the Literature Review  Technology

Support systems Existing resources

Maintenance of resources: Integration of technology:

Recommendations 1. e-Learning should drive the technology, not the other way around. Technology choice is context specific (Proctor & Gamble, 2005; Rosenberg, 2007) 2. Technology should be of high quality and reliable (Admiraal & Lockhorst, 2009; Borotis et al., 2005; Harfoushi et al., 2010; Keramati et al., 2011; Purnomo & Lee, 2013) 3. Adopt the simplest form of technology suitable for context, resources, and can solve the performance problem (Barrow, 2003; Kearns, 2010) 1. Maximize the use of current IT infrastructure (Chen, 2008; Rosenberg, 2001) 1. e-Learning technologies should as much as possible be integrated into existing technology to reduce cost. Vendors can assist with integration problems (Hung et al., 2009; Khan, 2005; Newton & Doonga, 2007)

Index

A A Company Making Everything (ACME) program, 78 C Content decisions, 93, 94 D Delone and McLean (D&M) success model, 66 E e-Learning adoption of, 5 advantages, 1 challenges, 2 definition, 6 development process, 2 synchronous and asynchronous modes, 6 tools and infrastructure, 6 e-Learning readiness adoption analysis, 8 definition, 7 environmental analysis, 8 external factors, 98 future research, 99 mental/physical preparedness, 7 organization’s capacity, 7 tool components, 9 e-Learning readiness tool, 85 administer the surveys, 87 checklists and recommendations, 86, 87

compile survey data, 88 decision-making questions, 92 human resources and capacity readiness, 89 judging knowledge management, 90 judging technology, 90 learner readiness, 91 organizational environment readiness, 89 sequence of activities, 88 surveys, 85, 86 target group, 86 technology and practice readiness, 90 H Human resources (HR), 51 as capacity, 53 capacity survey, 59 department roles, 52 e-Learning development administrative function, 54 implementation stage, 56 learner support, 54 planning stage, 55 production stage, 54, 55 KM activities, 53 learners, 56 attitudes, 58 e-Learning intervention, 57 employees, 57 organizational change and performance goal, 56 skill requirement, 58 training materials, 58

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 C. James-Springer, K. Cennamo, A Tool for Determining e-Learning Readiness, SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76994-9

111

Index

112 I Information and communication technologies (ICTs)., 98 Instructional Systems Design (ISD) process, 11 International Monetary Fund (IMF), 97

financial decisions, 32 human resources, 32 leadership support, 30 learning culture, 31 organizational goals, 30 technological tools, 32 technology and practice, 33 Systemic change, 27

K Kirkpatrick/Phillips model, 43 L Learner readiness adult learning theory, 76 computer self-efficacy, 79 conceptual model, 76 experiential learning, 76 face-to-face approach, 79 KASH focus, 78 survey, 80–82 technical skills, 78 O Organizational environment readiness, 35 advantages, 40 e-Learning adaption, 42 financing decisions, 41 calculation benefits, 41 content creation, 44 delivery modalities, 44 Kirkpatrick/Phillips model, 43 learning management system, 42 supporting elements, 45 goals and performance, 36 innovative organization, 39 leadership and management support, 37 learning culture and organization, 38, 39 survey, 46, 47 S Support systems, 28 e-Learning adoption, 28 final checklist, 33 human resource and capacity, 33 organizational environment, 33 questions structure, 32 surveys, 30

T Target participant population (TPP), 16 Technology acceptance model (TAM), 66 Technology readiness, 63 CD ROMs, 66 D&M success model, 66 information and communication technology, 65 infrastructure, 64, 65 integration, 67, 68 IT department, 64 TAM, 66 technology and practice survey, 69, 71 text-based content formats, 67 Tool design and development analysis phases, 13 bodies of literature, 19 business readiness, 16 content readiness, 16 cultural readiness, 16 decision-making process, 22, 23 e-Learning readiness models, 15 entrepreneurial readiness, 18 financial readiness, 16 formative evaluation, 24 human resources and capacity, 21 human resource readiness, 16 integrated approach, 12 ISD process, 11 organizational environment, 20–21 phases, 13 purpose of, 13 research framework, 12 research methodologies, 11 role of context, 22 technology readiness, 16, 18 testing and evaluation, 23 three-pronged approach, 16 training readiness, 16 technology and practice, 21–22