Typically, the ID would provide the approved CSB to his/her graphics designer, programmer and if necessary, videographer (who was in- charge of all video and audio work) and performed a walk-thru with them on what was needed to be created for that courseware (such a walk-thru usually takes at least half a day). Each team member was then given a timeline to complete the tasks given, and once all media elements had been created, the programmer weaved everything together into the courseware. In a sense, the courseware may be deemed to be “completed” since everything dictated in the CSB was now “live.” Before the final delivery, the courseware is sent through the Courseware Evaluation (CEV) stage. The objective of this stage was to ensure that the courseware met the specifications in the CSB, as well as to gather feedback from a small sample group of instructors and trainees to fine- tune courseware. These evaluations were called the Instructor Try-Out (ITO) and Student Group Try-Out (SGTO) collectively. The ID worked with the school Project Coordinator to collect the responses given during ITO and SGTO. Appropriate suggestions were incorporated into a final round of changes, and the courseware was then delivered, installed and tested at the schools’ computer (this is called On-Site Acceptance Testing, or OSAT in short). That courseware was then signed-off as completed and delivered, and a project is completed when all courseware earmarked for a particular school had been delivered. Upon delivery, the courseware was placed under Warranty and Maintenance, details of which are provided under the section entitled Change Management Framework . Amendments to the Content Development Framework The building blocks for any customised eLearning content development project are the courseware modules to be built. As can be seen from this project, and the key personnel involved was the ID, since he/she was the only person directly involved in all stages of the Content Development Framework . Hence, it appears that success (or failure) of any of the customised eLearning content development projects rested mainly on the hands on the ID.
58 In the first year alone, we noticed that the most glaring issue with the programme was with the quality and timeline issues of some of the IDs. Simply put, some IDs were producing courseware either too slowly (the framework posits that an ID could produce at least 7 hours of courseware in a year; see Annex A for the Courseware Development Norm Chart; see Annex B for a sample Courseware Development Timeline Chart ) or of inferior quality (e.g. weak instructional design, incorrect linkages). Originally, it was assumed that IDs, prodded by their SPJMs, would adhere to the timeline set in the PMP and deliver at least 7 hours of eLearning courseware a year. However, the reality on the ground was that very often, meetings got postponed, SMEs were sent overseas, etc, and these factors reduced the efficiency rate of some IDs by up to 50%.