> [!summary]+ Summary > This page describes the project management system that designed while serving as the Director of Strategic Digital Learning Initiatives at the George Washington University. # Project management for online course design and development at GWU This project management work was undertaken as part of transforming existing work between faculty, Instructional Designers, and Multimedia Producers. Together they were creating online university courses and I oversaw half of this work. After about a year of observing and working with the existing system, I decided to revise system. This would initially focus on improving efficiency, shared staff project ownership, and reduce step dependencies. The ultimate goals were to 1) have projects completed with 4-5 months, 2) make staff contributors equal owners and accountable for their work, 3) reduce media production time/cost/iteration through design, and 4) increase cross-functional teaming. ## A hybrid form of project management The created project management system was a mix of **Waterfall**, **Agile**, **Six Sigma**, and **Critical Path Method** methodologies. I spent many hours picking at an existing system to re-define steps, creating documents for discussion with a peer director, *teaching* about risks and costs, and iterating again. The resulting system unknowingly pulled from many project management methodologies. Some of the included characteristics related to each methodology are as follows. | 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 dependences and planned reduction | This system was the result of combined lessons from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH), and my own readings on effective project management. Please see the **results** section below. --- ## The project context This project management system was designed to guide the design, development, and delivery of online university courses. The core elements of what needed to be managed were instructional design and multimedia production. Courses were created within the library an in partnership with faculty from various colleges/schools at the university or sometimes with subject-matter-experts (SMEs) from outside the university. Contacts were generally work-for-hire (WFH) and our department was responsible for leading and overseeing project completions. ### Problems to solve A new system was needed to completely replace an existing system. The existing system was a variation on part of instructional systems development (ISD) – analysis, design, and develop (ADD in ADDIE). What is more, the existing system prioritized happiness with the end result. Timely completion of work, performance standards, standard quality, product consistency, and data collection and analysis were not considered. This needed to be solved along with some specifically identified problems. #### System specific problems - Re-interpretation of the system by each Instructional Designer - No performance measures or data collection - No use of project management tools/software - Multiple overlapping dependencies - Unrealistic media production constraints - Indefinite iterations (for perfection) - Project completions ≥9 months #### Staff specific problems - Frequent sick time - Lack of voice and ownership of Multimedia Producers in their work - Absent space/time for professional development - Inability to contribute beyond a narrow band of work ### Project management goals Myself and leadership wanted to achieve the following: 1. Have projects completed with 4-5 months; 2. Make staff contributors equal owners and accountable for their work; 3. Reduce media production time/cost/iteration through design; and 4. Increase cross-functional teaming. ### People involved I designed this in coordination with a peer director overseeing the Instructional Designers. This impacted the work of, stakeholders, up to 5 Instructional Designers, and up to 4 Multimedia Producers. ### Challenges The greatest challenge was **resistance to change**. Many people who had been executing the existing system did not want to give up any perceived control, some did not want to be directly responsible for their work, and there was a general resistance to performance data collection. ## The solution A project management plan was created that accounted for 4 distinct phases with 1-3 steps each. In order to ensure correct work ownership and responsibility, the plan accounted for where partners are to lead communications, what deliverables they should produce, and what determines a step is completed. - **Phase 1** - **Step 1: Initiation** (5 working days) - In this step a formal kick-off meetings was completed with all team members and the first in-take meeting was had. Separately, Instructional Designers and Multimedia Producers created and shared cloud storage systems. They also gathered leave for the milestones 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, begin the course alignment map, and drafting an initial media production plan. - The MP would attend meetings and provide feedback and/or guidance to SME 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 was the Instructional Designer completing the design of the course. They were to create the development plan, finalize with partners the plan for what media to produce, curate any 3rd party media, and gather from the faculty 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 2 design meetings, collaboratively leading the team through storyboarding, identifying/creating potential production assets, leading SMEs on script writing, and providing coaching. - *Note: **Iteration** occurred through out 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. Spreadsheets were NOT used to review media. Instead, Frame.io was used to host versions of media and gather feedback from SMEs. IDs could provide feedback too. - **Step 6: Development** (30 working days, concurrently with step 5) - Instructional Designer 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 2 other IDs on their team who then went through the course evaluating by the Quality Matters rubric. - *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 the multimedia production aspect of the workflow, I created trackers and a series of performance metrics. Project boards were constructed on Monday.com and team members were required to communicate their progress there as well as input certain quantities. I would then migrate some of this to an Excel spreadsheet for analysis. #### Tracking: Monday.com Three types of boards were created. - **Level 1: Term high-level** - I maintained this board that provided various bits of information about each project. For example, who was involved, when the project started and ended, current status, term of start and conclusion, and shared notes. - **Level 2: Course level** - Each project owner was responsible for keeping their board up-to-date. This board communicated to partners progress, and was used by me to monitor progress. We would discuss these during one-on-ones. - **Level 3: Multimedia production** - All team members could add to this board. Each project owner was responsible for inputing 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 was acceptable) - Average minutes per 1 minute of audio produced. (≤5 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 project 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> *Note: This design/layout took significant inspiration from an Agile workflow I used in Learning and Development at Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH).* > [!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 project 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 of over reliance 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 this section in [[making work visible#Coaching a manager]] to see what inspired this approach of visualizing the risks in lateness.* > [!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 noticiable delays in the work. The chart along with the map helped me to negotiate a more reasonable approach. ### Milestones 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 project management system reduced the time to deliver projects by 55%.== After full implementation, it became common for the team(s) to deliver 9-13 online courses by the end of May and mid-December. Staff no longer reported burnout, frustration with the inability attend professional development, and the inability to take annual leave time when they wanted. With the summer months opened up, the teams pursued professional development, worked on smaller special projects, and had time for team activities. Importantly, I had a year-round physically and mentally healthy staff. Beyond this, we had a data informed picture of the work and how much it was costing us.