#program-management #instructional-design #multimedia-design #course-design #teaming > [!summary]+ Summary > This page describes the program management system that I designed for online course development while serving as the Director of Strategic Digital Learning Initiatives at the George Washington University. This system was followed by central library staff in online course design and development. # Program management for online course design and development at GWU This work was part of transforming an existing online course design and development process. Faculty, external experts, Instructional Designers, and Multimedia Producers were all involved. After working for about a year within an existing approach and understanding how it worked and where it fell short, I began making changes to improve how teams worked and how projects moved forward within a program of online course development. My focus was on increasing efficiency, strengthening shared project ownership, and reducing unnecessary dependencies. Over time, these changes led to meaningful long-term outcomes, including: 1. completing projects within 4–5 months; 2. establishing clear lines of accountability and shared ownership; 3. reducing media production time, cost, and iteration; and 4. increasing cross-functional teaming. ## A hybrid form of program management The program management system created was a blend of **Waterfall**, **Agile**, **Six Sigma**, and **Critical Path Method** methodologies. I spent many hours making sense of the existing approach to understand why projects were taking 9–12 months to complete. Through that work, I redefined steps, introduced clearer structure, created materials for discussion, *taught* about risks and costs, and iterated on the system and workflows. The resulting system drew on many methodologies | Methodology | Characteristic(s) included | | -------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Waterfall | Linear and sequential; identified clear phases; established milestones | | Agile | Strategic iterations with design and production phases; incorporated partner feedback early | | Six Sigma | Adjusted step priorities based on (prior) performance data | | Critical Path Method | Highlighted dependencies and planned reduction | --- ## The program context This program and project management system was designed to guide specific steps of **analysis**, **design**, **development**, and **delivery** of online university courses. It focused on coordinating the core areas of work, instructional design and multimedia production, while supporting collaboration between librarians, university faculty, program managers, and occasionally external subject-matter experts. The work was generally structured as work-for-hire (WFH) with subject matter experts, and with my department responsible for leading the process to ensure courses were delivered on time and to agreed standards. ### Problems to solve A new program and project management system was needed to improve the workflow. The existing system had three key issues. It focused on elements of **analysis**, **design**, and **development** (ADD in ADDIE) unevenly, it had no structure of roles and responsibilities, and it attempted to incorporate *all ideas* of what the product should be from contributors and stakeholders. There was no focus on **time**, **cost**, or **scope**. While high-quality was the common goal, it was only somewhat defined and also suffered because of the issues stated above. In all, this resulted in projects taking anywhere from 9–12 months to complete when they could be done in 4–5 months. #### System-specific problems - Re-interpretation of the system by each Instructional Designer - No formal agreement on time or scope - No performance measures, data collection, or analysis - No use of project management tools/software - Multiple overlapping dependencies - Media production requests outside of available support - Indefinite iterations - Project completion taking 9–12 months #### Staff-specific problems - Overworked and frequent sick time - Lack of voice and ownership of Multimedia Producers - Absent space/time for professional development - Inability to contribute beyond a narrow band of work ### Program management goals 1. Have projects completed within 4–5 months; 2. Make staff contributors equal owners and accountable; 3. Reduce learning design time, cost, and iteration; 4. Reduce media production time, cost, and iteration; 5. Increase cross-functional teaming; and 6. Improve overall product consistency and quality. ### People involved I designed a system in coordination with a peer director overseeing Instructional Designers. This impacted the work of stakeholders including up to 5 Instructional Designers, 4 Multimedia Producers, 2–3 program managers at partnering colleges/schools, and at least 1 faculty per course designed. ### Challenges The greatest challenge was **leading change** in an environment where many people were comfortable with the existing system. Some colleagues were reluctant to shift responsibilities, even when the changes allowed them to focus more and grow in their areas of strength. Others were hesitant about performance data and clearer accountability structures. Nonetheless, establishing a shared project management framework was necessary, and in particular explaining the rationale behind the change. ## The solution A program and project management plan was created that accounted for four distinct phases with defined steps each. In order to ensure correct work ownership and responsibility, the plan clarified where partners are to lead communications, what deliverables they should produce, and how completion of a step is determined. - **Phase 1** - **Step 1: Initiation** (5 working days) - In this step a formal kick-off meeting was completed with all team members, including the first intake meeting. Separately, Instructional Designers and Multimedia Producers created and shared cloud storage systems. They also collected planned leave dates for the milestone schedules. - **Step 2: Collection** (5 working days) - Here the ID would lead the collection of all course materials from the SME. They would then share those with all partners via cloud storage. The ID and MP would also present the production schedule to the SME(s). - **Step 3: Analysis and conceptualization** (10 working days) - The ID would lead this part completing the needs analysis, completing the scope of work, beginning the course alignment map, and drafting an initial media production plan. - The MP would attend meetings and provide feedback and/or guidance to questions for storytelling. The MP would be responsible for independently learning about the content and begin ideating graphics, styling, and visually explaining learning content. - **Phase 2** - **Step 4: Design** (20 working days) - The first part of this step involved the Instructional Designer completing the design of the course. They were to create the architecture, finalize with partners the media plan, curate any third-party media, and gather from the faculty/SME small outlines for each desired video. - The second part of this step was the Multimedia Producer completing the design of any visual media with the SME. They were responsible for arranging and leading at least two design meetings, collaboratively leading the team through storyboarding, identifying and creating potential production assets, leading SMEs on script writing, and providing coaching. - *Note: **Iteration** occurred during this step, but it was time limited. I encouraged everyone to make dedicated time to bring their ideas together in a visual format.* - **Phase 3** - **Step 5: Production** (30 working days, concurrently with step 6) - Multimedia Producers were responsible for getting all media recorded and completing the post-production process. Frame.io was used to host versions of media and gather feedback from SMEs and IDs. - **Step 6: Development** (30 working days, concurrently with step 5) - Instructional Designers were responsible for building the online course following the development plans, as well as gathering feedback from SMEs. - **Phase 4** - **Step 7: Evaluation** (10 working days) - In this step, the primary ID shared their work with two other IDs on their team who then went through the course using the Quality Matters rubric to evaluate it. - *Admittedly, this is too long.* It should be no more than 3 days. But it is something that my peer colleague resisted changing. ### Performance tracking and data collection For multimedia production in the workflow, I created project trackers and a series of performance metrics. Project boards were constructed on Monday.com and team members were required to communicate their progress there. I would then migrate some of this to an Excel spreadsheet for analysis. #### Tracking with Monday.com Three types of boards were created. - **Level 1: Term high-level** - **Level 2: Course level** - Each project owner was responsible for keeping their board up-to-date. This board communicated progress and was used by me and stakeholders. We would discuss these during one-on-ones. - **Level 3: Multimedia production** - All team members added to this board. Each project owner was responsible for communicating data and keeping the board up-to-date. - Example metrics: total work time, length of video, number of assets used, number of scripts provided, days of SME delay, days of ID delay, and days for design. ##### L2 Course level board steps The following outlines the course project management board that team members were responsible for each of their projects. Colored phases correspond with the **Online Course Project Workflow** shown below. <div class="container"><iframe class="responsive-iframe-pdf-port" src="https://1drv.ms/b/c/13829E5D2EB238DE/IQQPN0r40yZ6SKOWakYodatlAVE3xuPKgpYkC7ckx4iWECU" width="100%" height="550" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></div> #### Data collection and analysis: Excel The various metrics collected, quantified, and analyzed were the following: - Number of design weeks - Estimated weekly design hours - Studio recording hours - Total hours of work time - Video and audio/podcast - Total time in minutes - Average time per item - Average minutes per 1 minute produced - Days of work time - Scripts planned - Scripts collected - Documents produced - Graphics produced - Animations produced Using the metrics above, I would report the following: 1. Calculated – Produced video and audio/podcasts - Weekly design hours - Average minutes per 1 minute of video produced. (≤30 min. was acceptable) - Average minutes per 1 minute of audio produced. (≤5 min. was acceptable) - Design cost - Recording cost - Post-production cost - Total cost - In practice, I added $100 to the total for materials used. 2. Not calculated - ±days to complete relative to due date - Studio hours - Total work time - Scripts collected - Paid assets used ### Online course development workflow (full version) The following is the full version of the workflow. This was used as the primary reference point when discussing teaming responsibilities and for on-boarding new staff. <div class="container"><iframe class="responsive-iframe-pdf-land" src="https://1drv.ms/b/c/13829E5D2EB238DE/IQRS0Xr2HiOYQ58lU8nLLHWMAbpkPmeqpg2rW02nmkaQhZw" width="100%" height="450" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></div> > [!info]- Updating phases 2 and 3 for genAI > A couple of years after this project workflow and management system was put into place I worked with my team to plan how we could incorporate genAI into our design and production steps. See this page for how we did this – [[2023, GWU genAI MP workflow]]. ### Online course development workflow (summary version) The following is a summarized version of the workflow. This was used as an additional reference point when discussing teaming responsibilities. <div class="container"><iframe class="responsive-iframe-pdf-port" src="https://1drv.ms/b/c/13829E5D2EB238DE/IQRJNciz8B5uS5BH8Dyogeg8ARf2NwGZgyIB17eMNojmSJM" width="100%" height="450" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></div> ### Dependency chart and the math This chart was used to highlight dependencies and risks through the workflow. Scroll down to see the consequences of 1 partner being late. <div class="container"><iframe class="responsive-iframe-pdf-land" src="https://1drv.ms/b/c/13829E5D2EB238DE/IQQ3H7xQX_EpQ4GMNw8aiYIgAeWjUYYcXKcbKz6s4vuUym4" width="100%" height="550" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></div> *Note: See [[making work visible#Coaching a manager]] to see what inspired this approach.* > [!info]- Background on the dependency chart > I pulled this together to help my colleague, who was in charge of the Instructional Designers. She wanted the IDs to be leading or involved in every aspect of project development. (As a former ID, I knew this was unnecessary and unsustainable.) This was causing friction and noticeable delays in the work. The chart along with the map helped me to negotiate a more reasonable approach. ### Milestone schedule template This document is the project planning schedule that was produced and used for multiple years. <div class="container"><iframe class="responsive-iframe-pdf-port" src="https://1drv.ms/b/c/13829E5D2EB238DE/IQRwTK4IVXklTZWJFumE7HibAWD37Jdpx85VOIRILYJhgMg" width="100%" height="550" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe></div> ## 🎯 Results This program management system reduced course development timelines by **55%**. After full implementation, it became common for teams to deliver **9–13 online courses** by late May and again by mid-December. Staff outcomes improved significantly as well. Team members no longer reported burnout, frustration about missing professional development opportunities, or difficulty scheduling annual leave. Summer months opened for professional development, special projects, and intentional team-building. Perhaps most importantly, the team was able to sustain a **year-round rhythm that supported both productivity and well-being**. Because the system was data-informed, we also gained a clear understanding of the true effort, cost, and workflow patterns associated with course production. This allowed for more strategic planning, grounded decision-making, and more honest conversations about capacity, expectations, and growth.