degrees in varied career clusters, more than 600 different online courses, and a considerably ...... academic, student service, technology, personnel management, finance). The model ...... Retrieved July 2006 from http://cits.tamiu.edu/kock/.
IMPROVING THE COLLABORATION INFRASTRUCTURE OF AN ONLINE INTER-INSTITUTIONAL CONSORTIUM by Teresa D. Theisen MARK H. ROSSMAN, Ed.D., Faculty Mentor and Chair MAXINE ROSSMAN, Ed.D., Committee Member RICHARD SCHRECK, Ph.D., Committee Member Harry McLenighan, Ed.D., Dean, School of Education
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy
Capella University September 2008
3324825 Copyright 2008 by Theisen, Teresa D. All rights reserved
2008
3324825
© Teresa Theisen, 2008
Abstract More colleges are turning to inter-institutional consortiums for relief from rising expectations to educate all, an increasingly competitive education marketplace, tightening student resources, and overburdened college finances (USDOE, 2003). For consortium members, the need to overcome "transactional distances" (Peters, 1969) and connect practitioners who shared in consortium governance and operations but are otherwise involved in largely differing “life-worlds” (Berger, 2000) is evident. Curiously though, even some consortiums with strong beginnings and initially enthusiastic members fail to thrive and fall victim to coming undone (Baus & Ramsbottom, 1999; Fulmer, 2002; Johnson, 2005b; U.S. Department of Education /USDOE, 2003). Wanting for strategies that would create “common ground” (Brennan & Clark, cited in Resnick & Levine & Teasley, 1991, pp. 127-149) sufficient to sustaining interinstitutional collaboration, the study investigated features comprising a consortium collaboration infrastructure. Influenced by field theory (Lewin, 1948), the phenomenological design incorporated concepts from sociobiology, anthropology and psychology, theories addressing learning, personal, community and organizational development, knowledge management, cooperation theory and cooperative business principles, socio-technical teams and communities of practice, and studies of two American consortiums (Fulmer, 2002; Johnson, 2005). Also considered was advice on education and action research, practices for involving insiders and participatory case study processes (Borg & Gall & Gall, 1996; Coghlan & Brannick, 2005; Elliot 1991; Herr & Anderson, 2005; Johnson, 2005b; Kinchloe, 1991; Sagor, 2005; Schmuck, 2006; Stringer, 2004; Zuber-Skerrit, 1995).
Commissioned to illuminate participant understandings and extend knowledge needed to improve collaborative practices (Saavedra, 1994, 1996; Heron, 1996) the study resulted in actionable intelligence regarding the consortium collaboration infrastructure. Data from surveys, interviews and open meetings were translated to thick descriptions of lived experiences and used in making comparisons to virtual teams and communities of practice, assessing the engagement, imagination and alignment facilities comprising the collaboration infrastructure and designing and testing a mechanism to promote networking (Hildreth, 2000; Owens, 1991; Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003; Wenger, 2003). Integrity of results was protected by prolonged engagement, persistent observation, triangulation, participant debriefing, diverse case analysis, referential adequacy, member checks, ANOVA and application of "5 metrics" (Kimble, 1998).
Dedication The love and support of my family made this accomplishment possible. To my parents who instilled a love of learning in me and supported my early endeavors in school – thank you. To my husband who took on my responsibilities so I could tackle this advanced degree, who encouraged me in every way possible, and who helped me discover things in myself that I never knew existed – thank you. To my children who let me see the world with new eyes and made me want to finish what seemed impossible at times – thank you.
iv
Acknowledgments Thank you, Dr. Mark Rossman for mentoring me through this process. Your publications on the research process were helpful, and I am grateful for your personal participation in my first scholarly research expedition. The guidance you gave, the questions you asked, the critiques you offered, and your insights on navigating the academic and requisite administrative processes helped me to tame my fears, apply myself, and reach this end. Thank you to Dr. Maxine Rossman and Dr. Richard Schreck for participating on my committee. I feel blessed for your participation and the expertise that you bring from your work with adult students, your interests in empowerment, and your work in distance education. Thank you to Tamara, my sister, and Bob, my husband for the hours invested in editing my work in its most raw form. Your gracious investment in reading, proofing, and re-reading was appreciated greatly. Thank you to Presidents of the Distance Minnesota consortium for permitting me to study their consortium and to the Distance Minnesota practitioners for participating in the study. Thank you also to the researchers and authors who blazed a trail that I hope my work will extend.
v
Table of Contents Acknowledgments
v
List of Tables
xiv
List of Figures
xvii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1
Introduction
1
Background of the Study
3
Statement of the Problem
6
Purpose of the Study
7
Rationale
8
Research Questions
9
Significance of the Study
10
Definition of Terms
10
Assumptions and Limitations
16
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
17
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
18
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
20
Connectivity
20
Doing Business in a Wired World
20
Educating Students at a Distance
22
Interorganizational Cooperation
26
Case Studies on Inter-Institutional Educational Consortiums
29
Cooperation in Theory and Practice
33 vi
Cooperative Structures and Processes
33
Cooperation Theory: Dualism, Integration, Linkages, Transparency, Cognition 35 Knowledge-Driven Change
39
Knowledge Generation Theories
39
Knowledge Management Strategies
42
Core Ideas
56
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
57
Context
57
Design Strategy
57
Theoretical Framework
59
Scientific Foundations
62
Instrumentation, Data Collection, Analysis Methods and Quality Control
68
Quality Controls
78
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
83
Framework
83
Research Questions
83
Participation
84
Quantitative Data and Findings
84
Qualitative Data and Findings
165
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
307
A Recap of the Inquiry
307
Results
310
Conclusions
347 vii
Recommendations
350
Implications
352
REFERENCES
354
APPENDIX A. DISTANCE MN ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNANCE
371
APPENDIX B: LEADING VIRTUAL TEAMS
376
APPENDIX C: DEVELOPING VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE
378
viii
List of Tables Table 1. Case Study Design and Implementation Plan
58
Table 2. Relationship Between Traditional and Action Research and the Study
66
Table 3. Levels of Communities of Practice Shown by Survey Respondents
90
Table 4. Hours of Operation
167
Table 5. Characteristics of a Virtual Team and Pertinent Data on the Consortium
170
Table 6. Documentation Review: Domain
181
Table 7. Interviews: Mission, Contributors, and Benefits
182
Table 8. Interviews: Collaborating
184
Table 9. Interviews: Governance Responsibilities
185
Table 10. Interviews: Member Relations
186
Table 11. Interviews: Consortium Business Model
187
Table 12. Interviews: Consortium Curriculum Strategy
189
Table 13. Interviews: Positioning the Consortium
190
Table 14. Documentation Review: Community
192
Table 15. Interviews: Personal Characteristics Suited to the Consortium Setting
193
Table 16. Interviews: Consortium Leadership Qualities
194
Table 17. Interviews: Key Administrative Players and Their Roles
196
Table 18. Interviews: Key Roles of Campus Staff
198
Table 19. Interviews: Key Roles of Support Center Staff
199
Table 20. Documentation Review: Practice
200
Table 21. Interviews: Practice
201
Table 22. Documentation Review: Capabilities
204
ix
Table 23. Interviews: Capabilities
205
Table 24. Documentation Review: Representations and Artifacts
208
Table 25. Interviews: Representations and Artifacts
209
Table 26. Documentation Review: Spaces and Places
213
Table 27. Interviews: Spaces and Places
214
Table 28.Engagement: Mutuality and Interactional Facilities
217
Table 29. Engagement: Mutuality and Joint Tasks
219
Table 30. Engagement: Mutuality and Peripherality
223
Table 31. Engagement Facilities: Competence and Initiative and Knowledgeability
227
Table 32. Engagement Facilities: Competence and Accountability
228
Table 33. Engagement Facilities: Competence and Tools
231
Table 34.Engagement Facilities: Memory Making
234
Table 35. Imagination Facilities: Orientation
237
Table 36. Imagination Facilities: Reflection and Exploration
238
Table 37. Alignment Facilities: Convergence
243
Table 38. Alignment Facilities: Coordination
244
Table 39.Alignment Facilities: Jurisdiction
247
Table 40. Improving Mutuality
252
Table 41. Improving Peripherality Benefits
254
Table 42. Improving Competency through Initiative Taking
257
Table 43. Improving Competency through Accountability
260
Table 44. Improving Competency through Tools
261
x
Table 45. Improving Continuity through Reification
263
Table 46. Improving Continuity through Participative Memory Making
265
Table 47. Improving Imagination Facilities through Space, Time, Meaning, Power
268
Table 48. Improving Reflection
271
Table 49. Improving Exploration
272
Table 50. Improving Convergence
275
Table 51. Improving Coordination: Standards and Processes
276
Table 52. Improving Coordination: Communication
280
Table 53. Improving Coordination: Boundary Facilities
282
Table 54. Improving Coordination: Feedback System
283
Table 55. Improving Coordination: Jurisdiction
286
Table 56. Effect of the Consortium on Appreciation for Participation
291
Table 57. Effect of the Consortium on Appreciation for Engagement
296
Table 58. Effect of the Consortium on Appreciation for Reification
298
Table 59. Probable Effects to Shared Practice from the Proposed Improvements
301
xi
List of Figures Figure 1. Prospective Purposive Sample by Agency and Department
71
Figure 2. Prospective Purposive Sample by Job Type and Group
72
Figure 3. Prospective Purposive Sample and Actual Participation in Survey
85
Figure 4. Prospective Purposive Sample and Actual Participation in Interviews
86
Figure 5. Prospective Purposive Sample and Actual Participation in Open Meeting
87
Figure 6. Member Organizations
89
Figure 7. Community Maturity by Agency
93
Figure 8. Community Maturity by Department
94
Figure 9. Community Maturity by Job Type
95
Figure 10. Portion of Participants and Portion of Comments about Elements
97
Figure 11. Community Element by Agency
100
Figure 12. Community Element by Department
102
Figure 13. Community Element by Job Type
103
Figure 14. Portion of Participants and Portion of Comments about Domain
106
Figure 15. Domain Themes by Agency
108
Figure 16. Domain Themes by Department
110
Figure 17. Domain Themes by Job Type
111
Figure 18. Frequency Work Involved Joint Tasks
115
Figure 19. Frequency Media were used for Communicating about Shared Projects
116
Figure 20. Frequency Media were used for Swapping Anecdotes
121
Figure 21. Frequency Media were used in Daily Work involving Others
125
Figure 22. Email Features Liked/Disliked by Agency, Department, Job Type
130
xii
Figure 23. Voicemail Features Liked/Disliked by Agency, Department, Job Type
134
Figure 24. Videoconferencing Features Liked/Disliked by Agency, Department, Job 135 Figure 25. Phone Conferencing Features Liked/Disliked by Agency, Department, Job 138 Figure 26. Online Meeting Features Liked/Disliked by Agency, Department, Job
141
Figure 27. Live Chat Features Liked/Disliked by Agency, Department, Job
144
Figure 28. Ask a Question Features Liked/Disliked by Agency, Department, Job
145
Figure 29. Preferences for Documentation and Fact Finding
149
Figure 30. Preferences for General Communications and Events Planning
150
Figure 31. Preferences for Relationship Building
152
Figure 32. Preferences for Personal and Personnel Matters
155
Figure 33. Online Consortium Governance System Chart
168
Figure 34. Organizational Chart of the Consortium Office/Support Center
169
xiii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION In this chapter, the problem is introduced, the purpose of the study is explained, and the research questions are introduced. Also discussed are the rationale and significance of the study, assumptions and limitations, and theory around which the inquiry is framed. Key concepts are defined for individuals who are unfamiliar with the topic. Introduction This case study involved practitioners in examining the collaboration infrastructure of Distance Minnesota, one of the 1500 distance education consortiums operating in the United States (USDOE, 2003, pp. 46). By mission, Distance Minnesota (n.d.) endeavored "to provide a satisfying, effective, and affordable education experience online”. At the time of the study, Distance Minnesota was the only Inter-institutional consortium in the State of Minnesota that admitted qualified students to online majors, coordinated the scheduling of online programs and courses, and provided online student support services on behalf of member colleges. (Refer to App. A.) Similarly to other inter-institutional consortiums (Baus & Ramsbottom, 1999; Fulmer, 2002; Johnson, 2005b; USDOE, 2003), Distance Minnesota members collaborated to the extent needed for educating the collective student body online. Comprised of four two-year colleges and their eight campuses and a coordinating office, the consortium operated as a loosely coupled organization existing within a more encompassing state system (Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Board of 1
Trustees, 2007; Office of the Chancellor, 2007; Campus Service Units, 2007; Minnesota Online, 2007). Member colleges to Distance Minnesota (i.e., Alexandria Technical College, Minnesota State Community and Technical College, Northland Community and Technical College, Northwest Technical College) varied in size, in numbers of campuses, and in their separately held assets. Collectively, the membership spanned a geography equaling a small state (i.e., Connecticut). Distance Minnesota (n.d.) had experienced considerable success. Since inception, the consortium had grown from offering a few credit courses to offering 53 online degrees in varied career clusters, more than 600 different online courses, and a considerably diverse course term schedule. Annual enrollment had grown from eight students in the first year of operation to over 12,000. Methods to support online learners had expanded to include self-help tools available on a 24/7 basis and personalized services provided by a centralized information, advising and counseling, and technical support staff that was available seven days a week and weekday evenings. The incumbent delivery system took form in a "distance education blueprint" that outlined college and support center responsibilities to two sectors of students (i.e., online majors, and campus majors taking online courses occasionally). Under continuous development the blueprint guided operations and connected member college practices in key areas. Although the overall workability of the blueprint was acknowledged, so were the areas fraught with inconsistencies. Popular wisdom suggested the divergent practices were born out of the traditions member colleges brought with them when entering the consortium and were generated from a deep-seated orientation toward developing and implementing practices independently. 2
Logically member colleges felt the tensions the literature associated with aligning practices to make a seamless system, while at the same time operating as independent, autonomous and distinctive institutions (Baus & Ramsbottom, 1999; Fulmer, 2002; Johnson, 2005b; USDOE, 2003). Within Distance Minnesota, smoothing out the gaps, overlaps, and contradictions interested member colleges. However the probability of aligning the existing divergent practices raised concerns about what would constitute their independent identities. Moreover, continuing development of the consortium needed to occur in ways that did not disrupt the pattern of remarkable enrollment growth, did not forgo market expansion opportunities, and did not diminish the revenues member colleges needed to underwrite their increasing costs. Background of the Study The process for creating a more seamless system rested in developing shared practices and relied on engagement, participation, professional and personal experience, and negotiation. Groups that were coordinated by consortium staff and convened via technology evaluated practices for their effects on quality indicators embraced by the consortium (i.e. student access, student satisfaction, learning effectiveness, affordability, and impact on the ease of faculty and staff work). In the consortium context, individuals involved in group work needed to overcome a special set of challenges that arose in interacting with others from a distance. While preferring to meet in person on some issues, the option was neither practical nor affordable. Individuals needed the participation skills to partake in group work that involved some individuals gathering in person, and others joining by phone or interactive television or online. Having, or quickly developing, the skills needed to access e-mail, web pages, and secured sites, before or 3
during a meeting was essential, as was the capacity to do basic troubleshooting on a compendium of core technologies. Using documents sent by e-mail or information appearing on web pages, as well the experiences and observations gained in the course of daily work, the groups determined what, if any, changes were needed. After agreeing on proposed changes in concept, practitioners field-tested the modified procedures and collected feedback from their college communities. Then, minus any contradictory administrative directives, practitioners in governing and operating groups endorsed, revised, or abandoned the proposed changes. Once endorsed, implementation of the modified practices across all sites fell to members of the consortium Operations Team. Undertaking change affected both how the consortium operated and how every member college conducted business. To become shared, a practice needed to receive the support of formal consortium groups, individuals in key positions, and personnel at all nine locations. Practitioners from member colleges participating in consortium groups felt challenged by the politics involved in embedding the procedures agreed upon in consortium groups within the freestanding and institutionalized practices of their colleges. While a small cadre (i.e., those involved in groups) labored with helping others see how frustrating divergent practices were to students, the larger majority (those not involved in groups) questioned how making changes would benefit the many students not involved in online learning. Colleagues not engaged in consortium groups found it difficult to understand the need for changing what seemed to work from their college bound perspectives and struggled to see how changing would benefit the greater good.
4
Other factors impeded change, also. For most leaders and administrators, managing free-flowing interactivity and borderless relationships were not encompassed in their past management experiences or their educational preparation. The tendency for individuals who were first among the Minnesota colleges to offer distance education online to gravitate toward relying solely on the experiences and imaginations of personnel when assessing the need for change and creating shared practices hampered changing, too. A culture that drew discussions, decisions, and plans toward “hands on experience” more so than to theoretical or literature-based solutions was problematic since otherwise collegial arguments on improvement implied to referent leaders, “your experience” has surpassed usefulness. The Distance Minnesota consortium experience seemed to resonate with the literature. Similar to the motivations of others joining consortiums, members of Distance Minnesota had banded together to enhance their abilities to move the promise of online education into practice within their small to midsized institutions (Baus & Ramsbottom, 1999; Fulmer, 2002; Johnson, 2005b; USDOE, 2003). In alignment with a report on educational consortiums existing in the United States, Distance Minnesota used technology to bridge physical distances between member colleges (USDOE, 2003). The challenges of overcoming issues of psychological distances existing between Distance Minnesota practitioners and the stresses involved in issues surrounding learning, meaning, and identity echoed those of other consortiums (Baus & Ramsbottom, 1999; Fulmer, 2002; Johnson, 2005b; USDOE, 2003; Wenger, 2003). While the problems facing consortiums seemed well documented, the literature did seem flush with insight on ensuring their viability. Most of the literature that directly 5
offered techniques for overcoming physical and psychological distances dealt with corporate and business settings, or addressed only educational classrooms and not educational organizations. Discussions of cooperation theory did not address educational settings, nor were consortiums mentioned (Fairbairn, 2003; International Cooperative Alliance /ICA, 2005; National Cooperative Business Association /NCBA, n.d.). Neither did reports on tendencies for organizations to move away from bureaucratic ventures toward matrix- and project-based models, or those explaining the operations of loosely coupled organic networks mention either educational institutions or consortiums (Morgan, 1989, pp. 64-67). The interest of the Distance Minnesota leadership was in securing the future of their colleges by enhancing the future of the consortium. Leaders favored engagement and participation, seemed interested in applying professional and personal experiences, and appeared willing to negotiate with one another. With respect to planning change, leaders appeared vested in: (a) More effectively leveraging the lessons recorded in the literature; (b) injecting the best practices of others; and (c) mining for new discoveries. Statement of the Problem Similar to other Inter-institutional consortiums, Distance Minnesota depended on forming “common ground” (Brennan & Clark, cited in Resnick, Levine & Teasley, 1991, pp. 127-149). Absent a nurturing networked environment, the community of practitioners governing and operating the consortium and their peers who were less involved in the consortium would grow apart because practitioners working together but from a distance, lived in different "life worlds" (Berger, 2000). Not integrated by forces typically present in a cohabitated work setting, practitioners lived their everyday lives “…according to sets 6
of (shared) meaning, deeply embedded in everyday contact” (Stringer, 2004, p. 21). The majority of their peers were less involved in the consortium, more far removed from its epicenter, less sure of its value to their work and their customers, and naturally less committed to its future. Because consortiums rely on members learning to refine their collective ability to work together (Baus & Ramsbottom, 1999; Fulmer, 2002; Johnson, 2005b) and because members operate in “life-worlds” (Berger, 2000) that require making deliberate connections, the study was directed toward the problem of identifying processes and features for improving the collaboration infrastructure of Distance Minnesota. Purpose of the Study The inquiry focused on the collaboration infrastructure or “what it takes to cultivate communities in the interorganizational context” of the Distance Minnesota consortium. The purpose of the study was to identify, describe, and offer an interpretation of the impact of actively engaging practitioners as participants in improving the consortium collaboration infrastructure. A key thesis asserted that involving stakeholders in assessing and planning improvements would generate practical wisdom about fostering increased collaboration. The study set out to address five overarching goals. (a) Examine actions that would ease the collaboration process. (b) Reflect on how findings support or contradict assertions found in the literature. (c) Compare views held by various stakeholding groups. (d) Use findings to develop potential guidelines for others seeking solutions for similar problems. (e) Use findings to suggest hypotheses for further study.
7
Rationale The study responded to the needs of the Distance Minnesota consortium and contributed to the literature addressing consortiums. The study offered insights to leaders interested in designing a positive future for Distance Minnesota. The study responded to a call for more research on developing higher education consortiums (Baus & Ramsbottom, 1999; Fulmer, 2002; Johnson, 2005b). The study also extended literature on mature consortiums and provided information for the consideration of fledgling consortiums. Additionally, the study responded also to a suggestion that future research addressing consortiums examine group functioning, forming shared meaning, developing consortium leadership, and effectively intervening on immediate and prospective problems (Johnson, 2005b, p. 185). Further, the study responded to an invitation to use “contextual design” to create “a ‘vision’ of a high level architecture for a system” (Hildreth, 2000, p. 266). Several works affirmed the relevance of the study. A major American study described the institutional change typically involved in offering distance education, the benefits and challenges from working together, and a trend showing more colleges and universities choosing to work together on delivering distance education (USDOE, 2003). Another source documented a growing interest in socio-technical approaches to organizational knowledge management in a diversity of settings (Hildreth, Kimble & Wright, 1998). Also suggesting relevance was the lack of similar research in educational settings. For example, no studies addressing socio-technical approaches to organizational knowledge management in education settings were found. Nor were any studies on using virtual teams and communities to change practices in education settings located.
8
Research Questions The study responded to an overarching research question: “To what extent do practitioner-participants from groups governing and operating the consortium perceive their involvement in assessing and planning improvements to the existing consortium collaboration infrastructure will improve the capability of their groups to create and continuously improve shared practice?” The study responded to the following supporting questions: 1. As assessed by practitioner-participants from groups governing and operating the consortium, to what extent do the board, process team, project teams, and communities of practice existing in the inter-institutional consortium identify with the virtual teams and communities of practice described in the literature? 2. As assessed by practitioner-participants from groups governing and operating the consortium, how well do the features of the current collaboration infrastructure compare with those features recommended in research? 3. What changes to the collaboration infrastructure do practitioner-participants from groups governing and operating the consortium recommend? 4. To what extent do practitioner-participants from groups governing and operating the consortium perceive that participating in the review, assessment, and redesign of the collaboration infrastructure has affected member appreciation for participation, engagement, and reification? 5. As judged by practitioner-participants from groups governing and operating the consortium, what effects would implementation of the recommended infrastructure improvements have upon further developing shared practice? 6. As judged by practitioner-participants from groups governing and operating the consortium, what effects would their involvement in deploying and using the improved collaboration infrastructure have upon further developing shared practice? 7. What patterns in the data lead to the generation of hypotheses that could be investigated in future studies?
9
Significance of the Study The study was significant in five ways. First, the study offered findings suitable for improving the Distance Minnesota collaboration infrastructure and by these ideas for cultivating and leveraging working together for strategic advantage. Second, the study contributed to the body of studies using action research. Third, the study added to the scant amount of existing research addressing inter-institutional consortiums, and the study complemented the literature existing on virtual team and virtual communities of practice by reporting on their existence and development within an educational setting. Fourth, the study extended the research of socio-technical organizational knowledge management strategies to educational agencies. Fifth, the study provided information for consideration by leaders involved in Minnesota Online, a consortium of 34 public Minnesota colleges and universities. Definition of Terms Communities of practice: Groups that emerge when individuals who share similar concerns, problems or passions initiate and sustain interactivity for the purposes of deepening personal or professional knowledge and expertise (Wenger et al., 2002, p.4). Community architecture: Chief ingredients for initiating and sustaining a community; these include a need to know (productive inquiry), emergent norms (community conventions), collaborative learning grounded in developing and exchanging knowledge objects (generative capabilities) and a communication system (Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003, pp. 79-80).
10
Community elements: The six foundations needed to constitute a community of practice; these include capabilities, domain, members (people), practice, representations, and spaces and places (Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003). Community capabilities: "the knowledge base, skills, abilities, brands, processes, and relationships that results in the ability to undertake actions within the practice…the ‘link’ between strategy and performance (Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003, p. 35). Community domain: " the community’s knowledge base and understanding of the field in which it resides (Wenger et al., as cited in Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003, p. 35). Community members (people): "…those who interact on a regular basis around a common set of issues, interests, or needs…the community of practitioners who join together to find ways to rebuild capability required to realize business strategies" (Wenger et al. & Lesser et al., as cited in Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003, p. 35). Community practice: "the ‘work’ of the community: its actions, learning activities, knowledge repositories, etc…The knowledge base, processes and procedures that inform a collection of actions in the delivery of a product or service" (Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003, p. 35). Community representations: "things…objects generated by individuals or collectively by the community (Lesser et al., as cited in Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003, p. 35). Community spaces and places: "gathering points, face-to-face or virtual, that provide a meeting ground for community members" (Lesser et al., as cited in Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003, p. 35).
11
Consortium: “…a semi-permanent organization typically supported largely by financial contributions from its members, that employs a professional staff whose sole responsibility is to encourage and facilitate cooperative activities between and among the members, and between them collectively and others” (Neal, 1988, p.2, as cited in Johnson, 2005b, p. 20). Collaboration: Cooperatively achieving outcomes and solving problems by interacting with others through processes grounded in rules, norms and structures developed by those involved (Wood & Gray, 1991, p. 140, as cited in Johnson, 2005b, p. 20). Collaboration Infrastructure: The internal operating system comprised from engagement, alignment, and imagination facilities (Wenger, 2003). Consortium: “…a semi-permanent organization typically supported largely by financial contributions from its members, that employs a professional staff whose sole responsibility is to encourage and facilitate cooperative activities between and among the members, and between them collectively and others” (Neal, 1988, p.2, as cited in Johnson, 2005b, p. 20). Inter-institutional: A relationship that “range[s] from full mergers to joint ventures to loose learning networks” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 222) Distance Minnesota: A consortium commissioned by an interagency agreement between four Minnesota state two-year colleges to provide their students enrolled in online courses and pursuing online degrees a satisfying, affordable, and effective online college experience (State of Minnesota, 2004).
12
Facilities for alignment: Features that organize relationships and activities to create a connected configuration; contributors include convergence, coordination, and jurisdiction (Wenger, 2003, p. 239). Convergence: A unification achieved from (a) "common focus, cause, or interest; direction, vision; shared understanding, creed, values, principles"; and (b) "allegiance, leadership, sources of inspiration, persuasion" (Wenger, 2003, p. 239). Coordination: A synchronization of efforts achieved from: (a) standards and methods, i.e., "processes, procedures, plans, deadlines and schedules; division of labor; styles and discourses"; (b) communication, i.e., "information transmission, spread of novelty, renegotiation"; (c) boundary facilities, i.e., "boundary practices, brokers, boundary objects, support for multimembership"; and (d) feedback facilities, i.e., "data collection, accounting, measurements" (Wenger, 2003, p.239). Jurisdiction: Norms for control that result from: (a) "policies, contracts, due processes"; (b) "mediation, arbitration, conflict resolution"; and (c) "enforcement, distribution of authority" (Wenger, 2003, p.239). Facilities for engagement: Features that encourage interacting with others; contributors include mutuality, competence, and continuity (Wenger, 2003). Mutuality: A sense of togetherness that accrues in the context of interactional facilities, joint tasks and peripherality (Wenger, 2003). Interactional facilities: A platform comprised of physical places, virtual spaces, electronic communication systems, dedicated time, and travel budgets which collectively make interacting with other community members possible and extends mutual access (Wenger, 2003, p. 237). 13
Joint tasks: "…things to do together; availability for help"(Wenger, 2003, p. 237). Peripherality: "…boundary encounters; ways of belonging to various degrees, peripheral participation, entry points; observation, casual encounters, open houses" (Wenger, 2003, p. 237). Competence: Readiness generated from integrating initiative-taking, the development of knowledgeability, accountability, tools and continuity (Wenger, 2003, p. 238). Initiative-taking and knowledgeability: Activities that result in helping people learn how to participate effectively; "occasions for applying skills, devising solutions, and making decisions; problems that engage energy, creativity, and inventiveness (Wenger, 2003, p. 238). Accountability: Activities that create a calling for people to act in unison to reach a commonly held goal; "occasions for exercising judgment and for mutual evaluation; recognizable style; negotiation of joint enterprises" (Wenger, 2003, p. 238). Tools: Instruments and contrivances that offer a specific utility; "artifacts that support competence; discourses, terms and concepts; delegation facilities (e.g., automation that allows practitioners to focus on more meaningful work)" (Wenger, 2003, p. 238). Continuity: A sense of connectedness and stability that results from interacting with others over time (Wenger, 2003, p. 238). Reificative memory: Documentation of the history of working together which takes form in "…repositories of information, documentation, and tracking; retrieval mechanisms" (Wenger, 2003, p. 238). 14
Participative memory: A history developed in the course of interacting with others; "…generational encounters, apprenticeship systems; paradigmatic trajectories; storytelling" (Wenger, 2003, p. 238). Facilities for imagination: Features contributing to envisioning the future; contributors include orientation, reflection, and exploration (Wenger, 2003, p. 238). Orientation: The position of a community within space, time, meaning and power structures (Wenger, 2003, p. 238). Orientation in space: The placement of a community within an organization or within constellations of communities as depicted by connecting points and open spaces or gaps (Wenger, 2003, p.238). Orientation in time: The placement of a community within a longer term trajectory; the developmental track of a community that is represented in "lore (and) museums" (Wenger, 2003 p. 238). Orientation in meaning: The purpose of a community that is represented in "explanations, stories, examples" (Wenger, 2003, p. 238). Orientation in power: The placement of a community in relation to decision making bodies, i.e., "organizational charts, process transparency" (Wenger, 2003, p. 238). Reflection: Experiences and representations thereof which portray the community structure and history to members and others, i.e., "models and representations of patterns…facilities for comparisons with other practices…(and) retreats, time off, conversations, sabbaticals, and other breaks in rhythm" (Wenger, 2003, p. 238).
15
Exploration: "opportunities to try new things out…envisioning possible futures and possible trajectories…creating alternative scenarios, pushing boundaries, prototypes (and) play and simulations" (Wenger, 2003, p. 238). Shared artifact: A physical or procedural object that represents knowledge and practices comprising how the community works and how members interact (Hildreth, 2000, pp. 48-49). Shared practice: Commonly held knowledge and socially-defined ways of operating that create a culture which creates a bond and a consistency by guiding "…action, communication, problem solving, performance and accountability" (Wenger, 2003, pp. 38-39). Virtual working or meeting: The act of conducting work or collaborating with others that occurs in a virtual space created by technology and is accessible from varying locations, sometimes at varying times (Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003, pp.89-90). Assumptions and Limitations Founded on the notion of “watering where the grass is green” the study embraced the premise that fostering enthusiasm, participation and engagement, and persistence of communities of colleagues is important to making consortiums work. Although practitioners may have eventually excelled at engineering shared practices from their experiences, imaginations, and resources already at their disposal, the study assumed an infrastructure that encouraged collaboration increased the likelihood of success. The study assumed also that explaining methods for engaging stakeholders to Distance Minnesota in reviewing, assessing, and resolving collaboration infrastructure problems
16
would be informative, if not inspiring, to others trying to address similar problems in similar settings. Several limits were inherent in the study. The study involved only one Interinstitutional consortium, and engaged only some of the individuals from groups that governed and managed the consortium. The results, while helpful to the consortium taking part in the study, may have limited application in other consortium settings. As the study involved a technology-oriented setting, as time passes and technologies improve the value of the results may become limited to offering a historical context. Likely, this study involving a researcher who was an insider collaborating with other insiders will trouble part of the scientific community even though the research method employed is accepting of an insider performing as the researcher, and the research plan adhered to an approach accepted as scientifically correct. Theoretical/Conceptual Framework (Note: The theory and concepts upon which the study was founded are identified in the following paragraphs, but a fuller description is found in Chapter Three.) With a problem grounded in qualitative inquiry, the study considered the social sciences. The design incorporated sociology (i.e., life-world by Berger, 2000) and anthropology (i.e., culture by Goodenough, 1971). The study design considered the psychology of adult learning also (e.g., adult learning by Cross, 1976; andragogy by Knowles, 1975; connectionism by Thorndike, 1913; experiential learning by Rogers & Freiberg, 1994; phenomonography by Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983). Organized around action research and the hermeneutical or interpretative sciences (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 28), the study sought to clarify the understandings of 17
participants. Modeled after a participatory case study involving a researcher acting in collaboration with other insiders, the design adhered to methods articulated for action research (i.e., Coghlan & Brannick, 2005; Herr & Anderson, 2005; Johnson, 2005a; Kinchloe, 1991; Sagor, 2005; Schmuck, 2006; Stringer, 2004; Zuber-Skerrit, 1992, 1995). Additionally, the design incorporated procedures described in case studies on inter-institutional consortiums (Fulmer, 2002; Johnson, 2005b) and case studies addressing communities of practice (Kimble, Grimshaw & Hildreth, 1998a, 1998b; Hildreth, 2000; Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003; Wenger, 2003; Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002). The study respected a need to lead and manage change and considered the six change management theories summarized by Kezar (2001). Considered in the design were both evolutionary (i.e., adaptations made from responding to given conditions) and teleological tendencies (i.e., genesis). Also considered were cyclical patterning present in life cycles and dialectical or political arguments and social cognition that developed from watching others and from overcoming cultural barriers that otherwise bounded possibility. The study accommodated reaching outside personal experiences and encouraged applying externally available information to the immediate context endorsed by several authorities (Krűger, n.d.; Lauer, 1973; Morgan, 1997; Owens, 1991). Organization of the Remainder of the Study Chapter 2 provides a synthesis of related literature. A more detailed discussion of the theoretical and conceptual framework, and a review and discussion of the methodology are located in Chapter 3. A summary of the data appears in Chapter 4.
18
Results, conclusions, and recommendations are found in Chapter 5. The reference list and a compendium of appendixes offer interested parties more detail.
19
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW After describing the effects of connectivity on business and education organizations, the review recaps two key concepts (i.e., cooperation in theory and practice, and organizational change management) and then summarizes other related theories. Connectivity The pace of organizational change escalated after researchers discovered “transactional distance” and opened the possibility for electronic communications to bridge both physical and psychological distances (Peters, 1969). The then futurists predicted that newly networked societies would alter the stable state (Hiltz & Turoff, 1978; Schön, 1973, p. 26). After researchers had shown that properly calibrating dialog, structure, and autonomy would diminish feelings of isolation and encourage participation, opportunities opened for using the technology to foster compassion, learning, and innovation (Weinberger, 2002). Subsequently, expanded connectivity gave birth to a "global knowledge-based society" (Pan Canadian, 2001, p. 1) and began constantly redefining “people’s informational and social universes” (Rainie, Fox, Horrigan, Fallows et al., 2005, p. 69). Doing Business in a Wired World Connectivity redefined the business context and business practices in distinct ways (Castells 1996; Levine, Locke, Searls & Weinberger, 1999; Sachs, 1995). New technologies made marketplaces virtually borderless. With consumers able to shop online 20
from sellers around the world, businesses turned to competing by lowering prices, providing more selection, and offering better services. Thereafter, serious attention was paid to building an organizational capacity “…to learn and innovate” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 191). "Information, its creation, acquisition, and dissemination" were associated with successfulness and longevity of the company (Pan Canadian, 2001, p. 1). First initiatives focused on learning to work smarter drive companies toward managing hard knowledge, and propelled them into organizing policies, guidebooks, and other documents. Subsequent efforts invested companies in developing the business intellect and in managing soft knowledge residing in personnel (Seeley Brown & Solomon-Grey, 1995). Thereafter with personnel increasingly valued for business reasons, distributed, online, virtual, and e – organizations, projects, teams, and communities of practice emerged in corporate settings (Hildreth, Kimble & Wright, 2000a; Kimble, Li & Barlow, 2000; Lesser & Storck, 2001; Strock & Hill, 2000; Wenger, 2000 & 2003; Wenger et al., 2002; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). The prospective positive impact of communities on business viability drew adulation from varying futurists. Said one foremost authority, "Firms that understand how to translate the power of communities into successful knowledge organizations will be the architects of tomorrow… (and) more successful in the marketplace (Wenger et al., 2002, p.232). Managing business in the wired world tested traditionally trained managers. As managers were advised to focus on points connecting units that comprised the organization, traditional techniques became outmoded. As example: “…managers (especially at senior levels) should concentrate as much or more on the flow of products, paper, and information between departments as on the activities within departments” 21
(Rummler & Brache, 1995, p. xvi). The new context required managers working in varied types of business to become skilled in promoting social learning within and between their workgroups (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Kimble et al., 1998a, 1998b; Kimble & Selby, 2000). Additionally, the new workplaces comprised physical places and virtual spaces drew management into the unfamiliar task of directing work that involved colocated and distant colleagues interacting through technology to accomplish shared goals. Educating Students at a Distance Colleges reported four primary reasons for starting distance education ventures (USDOE, 2003, pp. 15-16): (a) Increase student access and convenience (69%); (b) address time-related constraints (67%); (c) reach new audiences (65%); and (d) increase enrollments (60%). Also reported were less prevalent reasons for entering distance education: (a) Improving offerings (57%); (b) meeting employer needs (37%); (c) making education more affordable (36%); and (d) decreasing the cost of delivery (15%). Whatever their reasons for starting distance education programs, colleges had to overcome two immediate hurdles – accessing essential resources and learning online teaching techniques (USDOE, 2003, p. 75). Experiments first involved selected courses and the earliest technologies (e.g., telephone, video, Internet), and more recently involved delivering whole programs using newer technologies (e.g., web technologies including websites, online transactions, personal portals, interactive mobile devices, podcasting, digital portfolios, blogging, wikis, reusable learning objects and Second Life) . With viable higher education avenues opened online, students enrolled in distributed, distance, online, and e – degrees, courses, and workshops in increasing numbers (Pan Canadian, 2001; USDOE 2000, 2003). Following the lead of students, 22
colleges entered the online marketplace in increasing numbers also. By 2003, 56% of all 2-year and 4-year Title IV-eligible degree-granting institutions, 90% of all public 2-year colleges, and 83% of all public universities were offering distance education to over 2.8 million students (USDOE, 2003, pp. 4-7). If not before, then after opening distance education, colleges needed to resolve a baseline set of sustainability-related issues. To secure a position in the online learning marketplace demanded investing in: market analysis; administrative approval; institutional change authorizations; mission adjustments; policy review and revision; delivery planning; and issues surrounding the changed relations among colleagues and competitors (USDOE, 2003, p. 75). Similarly to businesses, colleges found connectivity increased competition and thereby increased customer (i.e., student) expectations. “Greater competition in the learning marketplace has the potential to benefit learners by offering more choices, more delivery options, lower costs, and increased flexibility” (Twigg & Oblinger, 1996). Adjusting to the needs of distance learners was requisite to colleges succeeding in distance education endeavors. In the educational setting connectivity made virtual classrooms possible and created opportunities for colleges to engage a more demographically and culturally diverse student body. Typically encompassed in even the earliest offered online courses were first time college students, campus learners taking a few online courses, people wanting to complete an entire degree online, and “perpetual or lifelong learners” (Twigg & Oblinger, 1996).The students who enrolled in online courses brought with them an expectation that colleges would accommodate the lifestyles of nontraditional students who were obligated to workplaces, families, and community activities 23
(Pan Canadian, 2001; USDOE, 2000, 2003). Quickly colleges realized that with connectivity working on their behalf, in just a few clicks of the mouse a disillusioned student could disengage from a college and reenroll elsewhere. To sustain a desirable position in the online learning marketplace required colleges to monitor and address not only the increasingly sophisticated consumer expectations, but also marketplace positioning, scaling of delivery platforms and procedures to serve growing numbers of students, online program and course development and management, developing and managing personnel operating in the online environment, and funds for new and replacement technologies (USDOE, 2003, p. 75). Proponents of systemic approaches to distance education related the need for increased quality, increased access, and cost containment with organizational change: “It is not possible to improve quality, provide for more students, and lower costs without reorganizing education” (Moore & Kearsley, 1996, p. 7). As leaders moved forward with the change initiatives requisite to succeeding in distance education, they resistance catalyzed from unexpected, but influential sources and for logical reasons. Resistance was generated in large part from those entrusted to protect the quality of the academic institution and to ensure its positive effect on learners. Included in the resistance movement were: (1) A long-established academic culture that holds a firm view of teaching as an individual’s act in a classroom. (2) …senior faculty and administrators, most of whom are satisfied with the system that gave them power. (3) …faculties, divisions, and departments, each of which guards its own interests. (Moore & Kearsley, 1996, 193) After realizing the unusual behaviors were explained by a naturally occurring phenomenon known as “…‘dynamic conservatism’ – ‘a tendency to fight to remain the 24
same’" (Schön, 1973, p. 30), leaders began seeking acceptance of distance education based on enduring educational values. As example, one quality movement endorsed using “pillars of quality” (Asynchronous Learning Network, n.d.). The model encouraged balancing five values widely accepted in education – student access, learning effectiveness, student satisfaction, affordability, and stakeholder satisfaction (Asynchronous Learning Network, n.d.). Among the structures intended to protect academic quality while still meeting the changing needs of learners was a model by Moore and Kearsley (1996). The model encouraged embedding distance education into the institutional core, embraced crossfunctional coordination, and proposed interlacing key subsystems. The model assumed distance education affected governance and policymaking and responded to the heightened need to distance introduced for coordinating across core functions (i.e., academic, student service, technology, personnel management, finance). The model acknowledged the need to adjust administrative practices and core college procedures (e.g., registration, enrollment, student records maintenance, billing and collections) to consider the needs of distant learners. Also described by Moore and Kearsley (1996) was how distance education created a need for faculty and academic administrators to fulfill their same roles but through different means and to fulfill new roles requiring new skills. Distance learner needs were credited for compelling changes in course development, design, scheduling, and delivery, evaluation of learning and grading, hiring, support, and supervision, oversight of instructional and counseling services, tutoring services, and study centers. Also affected by the implementation of distance education were: physical
25
plant, equipment, and materials decisions, institutional assessment and continuous improvement initiatives, and even the awarding of degrees. The experience reported by some colleges offering distance education implied that an attitude oriented toward embracing change benefitted colleges in tangible ways. An American government study indicated these institutions reported their resources expanded, identified fewer troubles with providing new features needed by distance learners, and felt more comfortable about institutional capacity and stability (USDOE, 2003, pp. 16-17). When handled effectively, the change accompanying distance education fostered a stronger and more capable institution. Interorganizational Cooperation A variety of sources indicated that cooperating was an effective strategy for competing in the online learning marketplace (Barton, 2005; Black, 2003; Eaton, 2001; Paulson, 2002; Oravec, 2003; Serdiukov, 2001; Werry, 2002). Those colleges choosing to cooperate with others found while the college exposure to organizational change was increased, so was the probability of securing a place in the online learning marketplace. Only certain types of institutions seemed interested in cooperating with other college to offer distance education. A study commissioned by the United States government described the institutions not inclined to join a consortium (USDOE, 2003, pp. 16-17). Non-members tended to include well-resourced, experienced, and large institutions. Often institutions that employed personnel experienced in delivering education online and those who owned the technologies needed to offer distance education were not involved in consortiums. Neither did consortiums attract institutions with enough resources to buy the necessary 26
technologies and to hire staff for their distance education initiatives, nor those institutions that perceived distance education as a series of events rather than as a system. Consortium memberships were not attractive to institutions that assumed needs for distance experience and resources would not increase into the future. Neither was a membership typically considered by an institution with a culture that invited change and could tolerate the raw experimentation involved in learning how to remedy perceptual and operational barriers. In contrast, quite often small to medium sized universities and most 2-year colleges offering distance education relied on cooperation and held memberships in consortiums (USDOE, 2003). To these institutions, the benefits of cooperating included – relief from inexperience, limited resources, internal turbulence, otherwise unsolvable gaps between target market expectations and deliverables, economy of scale problems, and invasive competition (Johnson, 2005b, p. 3). In exchange for working within shared rules, norms, decision-making inherent in consortium membership, institutions increased capacities to resolve problems and address opportunities to the greatest advantage (Johnson, 2005b, p. 3). The benefits notwithstanding, an inter-institutional effort to offer distance education was difficult to sustain. Noted in the literature were examples of consortiums that started for strong reasons, but were susceptible to coming undone (e.g., Baus & Ramsbottom, 1999; Duin, Baker & Starke- Meyerring, 2001; Moran & Myringer, 1999). The reasons for their disassembly varied. Consortiums became vulnerable when belonging became “…time-consuming and difficult, with results that fall short of expectations” (Johnson, 2005b, p. 2). Other reasons consortiums failed were identified 27
also – e.g., inadequate funding policies, deficient institutional commitment, unclear or overlapping missions, inappropriate or unorganized structures, ineffectual leadership, weak community support, incompatible members, and low levels of return on investment (Johnson, 2005b; Offerman, 1985). Additionally problematic to viability were inadequate financial planning, disagreements over money, competing visions and styles, clashes between leaders, loss of key staff, inadequate technology, disconnected actions, shifts in strategic direction, and decreased morale (Katz, Ferrara, & Napier, 2002). To successfully serve students attending consortium based distance education programs, employees needed to consider students from their own and partner colleges in the course of their everyday work. Several sources agreed that one way to foster both a well planned system and the presence of mind that considers students who are out of site was to engage students and stakeholders in planning the system (Baus & Ramsbottom, 1999; Fulmer, 2002; Johnson, 2005b). Engagement depended "…on individuals finding a way to participate locally – whether in a community of place or practice, or both" (Snyder & Wenger, 2004, p.18). For those colleges electing to compete by cooperating, an appreciation for learning, and a system to support was fundamentally important for survival and for the development of excellence. The complexity and intelligence of such a social learning system must match the complexity of world-design challenges and the knowledge requirements associated with them. The messy problems of civil society require a commensurate capacity for learning, innovation, and collaboration across diverse constituencies and levels…it is about the transformation of civic consciousness— a way of thinking about governance as an action-learning process, as a role for civic actors across sectors, as a process that links the local and global in clear and concrete ways. (Snyder & Wenger, 2004, 18)
28
Case Studies on Inter-Institutional Education Consortiums Despite the call for more research on a failure to thrive trend noticed among consortiums nearly ten years ago (Baus & Ramsbottom, 1999), a review of the literature produced only two recent studies of consortiums (Fulmer, 2002; Johnson, 2005b). Both studies assumed members joined consortiums expecting to profit, and both sought to clarify the benefits and challenges associated with the Inter-institutional consortium model. In both instances, the investigations took the form of a qualitative case study, “…an intensive, holistic description and analysis of a bounded phenomenon such as a program, an institution, a person, a process, or a social unit” (Merriam, 1998, p. xiii, as cited in Johnson, 2005b, p.69). While acknowledging the limitations of case studies relative to replication, both researchers argued that the rich and full descriptions from the real scenarios offered valuable insights for others to consider. Fulmer (2002) studied the start-up of the Southwest Virginia Higher Education Center (SVHEC), while Johnson (2005b) researched how the Iowa Community College Online Consortium functioned (ICCOC). The study by Fulmer (2002) sought to clarify the purposes of the SVHEC and to describe considerations made in its startup, while the study by Johnson (2005b) sought to identify factors that contributed to consortium vitality. Though their methods varied somewhat, the researchers seemed zealous in their efforts to minimize bias by following investigation procedures endorsed in the literature. The historical methods used by Fulmer (2002) drew on the recommendations made by Borg et al. (1996). The study led by Johnson (2005b) followed a phenomenological approach patterned from the work of Merriam (1998, as cited in Johnson, 2005b). 29
In both studies, data were collected from multiple sources in several ways. Fulmer (2002) followed first interviews of a smaller group with a second series of interviews involving community members, consortium and partner institution staff and students, and partner institution presidents. Fulmer (2002) also used focus groups and gathered more data in a survey of staff. After gathering data from semi-structured interviews, Johnson (2005b) observed behavior occurring in a natural setting (consortium office events) and at two conferences. Both studies involved varied but accepted analysis techniques. Fulmer (2002) drew word-based data into themes that were triangulated, member checked, sorted into categories, and then converted to statements of findings for review and affirmation in final interviews with members. Johnson (2005b) used content analysis and continuous comparison (Patton, 2002) to pull field notes, observer comments, interview transcripts, documents and literature into coded “regularities, patterns, and topics” (Johnson, 2005b, p. 83) and confirmed the classification using triangulation, member checks, and reflective reviews. To decrease the prospect of misinterpretations further, the reports written by both researchers provided descriptive results in context of the consortium studied. The report made by Fulmer (2002) related the mission of the consortium and member institutions, and described the rationale for the consortium. The study associated the consortium viability with economic development, citizen-experienced benefits, and relations with educators and politicians. After reporting the findings in an interpretive framework, Fulmer (2002) surmised developing a consortium was challenging and possible, but hard work and patience were required. When closing the report, Fulmer (2002, pp. 108-110) described several lessons learned by the SVHEC that others might 30
consider when planning and developing a consortium. (1) Start by developing a vision. (2) Assess strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. (3) Consider varying models (e.g., new college, extension of existing college or university, consortium with several members). (4) Involve community, business, and legislators in evaluating and planning facility updates. (5) Develop a strategic plan that addresses continuous improvement. (6) If a consortium is the model of choice, involve stakeholders, students, and employees in planning. Consider their ideas when setting the structure. Create a mission that complements the missions of member institutions. Foster a suitable culture. Develop strong leadership. Form a governance system. Develop a finance model that includes a revenue stream. Hire a consortium staff that is independent of partner institutions. Develop facility use guidelines. Identify opportunities for sharing resources. Create a means for resolving disputes at the board of director level. Focus on serving client and community needs. Promote creativity, flexibility, and responsiveness. (7) Develop plans to support community economic development. The report made by Johnson (2005b, pp. 98-101) described how the viability of the ICOCC related to context, strategies, and structure. Findings showed that shared concerns about competition, student needs, and institutional interests contributed to viability, as did shared purposes, strategies, and goals. Findings also showed structuring affected viability. The factors found to contribute to viability included: The consortium taking form as an independent virtual entity and embracing a relationship-oriented focus; a representative form of governance; a staff empowered to act autonomously of any one member; placing technologies under the authority of the ICOCC; taking a balanced approach to standardization and autonomy; and clarifying and committing to fiscal 31
arrangements. Other contributors to vitality included: Core operations and group work with norms that reflected respect, trust, and diplomacy; a commitment to consensusbased decision-making; effective management of conflict; open communication; freedom to act; and leadership. Also contributing to vitality was an obvious pattern of simple successes. When closing the report, Johnson (2005b) recommended several planning principles (pp. 175-184). (1) Form consortiums in response to compelling conditions. (2) Position consortiums to contribute to member stability in core ways (e.g., “delivering customer satisfaction” versus “serving students” Twitchell, 2004, p. 48, as cited in Johnson, 2005b, p. 179). (3) Set up a board committed to collaboration and a financial model that addresses revenue and cost sharing; and accept new members that volunteer, share in problems, or bring needed resources. (4) Reduce issues by driving form from function, and by committing to simplicity and clarity. Set expectations for consortium staff, integration, standardization, seamlessness, autonomy, group processes, member relations, and decision-making. (5) Allow time for a consortium culture to develop, while focusing also on bridging differences, business matters, and relationships. (6) Install a collaborative leadership: Collaborative leadership seems to be the art of understanding the elements and bringing them together in a meaningful way through involving the right people, balancing a drive to achieve with diplomacy, and a willingness to afford others the opportunities to express alternate ideas without fear… (and) maintaining focus by “dogging” the details required to make the arrangement work. (Johnson, 2005b, 183) Empower the collaborative to identify outcomes, set progress indicators, and communicate progress while meeting in-person only a few times a year. (7) Foster a 32
systems perspective whereby managers bolster the “fragile” nature of interdependence and avoid “deal stoppers” (Johnson, 2005b, p. 184). Both studies called for more research of Inter-institutional consortiums (Fulmer, 2002; Johnson, 2005b). Specifically recommended by Fulmer (2002, pp. 111-112) was: Studying SVHEC student satisfaction and whether SVHEC is meeting citizen learning needs; researching higher education consortium funding; comparing consortiums with extended campus models used by universities; and, studying the feasibility of adding new members to SVHEC. Research topics suggested by Johnson (2005b, p. 186) included: group processes (i.e., negotiating order; forming values, beliefs, norms, and shared meanings; effects of teaching, facilitating, and other interventions) and factors impacting the organization and operation of Inter-institutional consortiums (i.e., nature of leadership; impact of competition on students; effect of institution values and traditions; meeting needs of employers and society). Cooperation in Theory and Practice Although education seems compatible with "cooperating to compete" approaches, the cooperative models appearing in the business sector appeared more obviously aligned with cooperation theory. Defined in literature, a cooperative is “…an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise” (ICA, 2007, p. 3). Descriptions were careful to point out that as incomedependent as any business a cooperative must raise the funds needed to cover expenses needed for meeting social responsibilities of the organization (Fairbairn, 2003; ICA, 2005; NCBA, n.d.). 33
The capacity of a cooperative to permeate politically imposed borders, support distributed territories, allow growth, sustain businesses of varying sizes, and complement most industries was acknowledged (ICA, 2005; NCBA, n.d.). The literature documented that cooperatives existed at local, state, multistate or regional, national, and international levels, and provided for both storefront and Fortune 500 companies (NCBA, n.d.). In the United States, 48,000 cooperatives existed “…in every industry including agriculture, childcare, energy, financial services, food retailing and distribution, health care, insurance, housing, purchasing and shared services, telecommunications, and others” (NCBA, n.d.). Comprising a relatively small share of the American business sector, cooperatives encompassed 120 million members and engaged four of 10 Americans annually (NCBA, n.d.). While cooperating to compete is an accepted practice in the business community and operational cooperatives exist, because relatively few companies are structured as cooperatives the model is considered extraordinary and nontraditional (Fairbairn, 2003; ICA, 2005, NCBA, n.d.; USDOE, 2003). Interestingly, neither the international (ICA, 2005) or national (NCBA, n.d.) associations listed the education industry as home to cooperatives, nor did either discount that a cooperative model could support educational endeavors. Cooperative Structures and Processes Both international and national associations supporting cooperatives indicated cooperatives embrace a distinctive values and guiding principles (ICA, 2005; NCBA, n.d.). Named values included self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity, and the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others. Named principles included voluntary and open membership, democratic 34
member control, member economic participation, autonomy and independence, education, training and information, cooperation among cooperatives, and concern for community. The four purposes around which cooperatives formed were distinctive also (ICA, 2005; NCBA, n.d.). “Consumer cooperatives are owned by people who buy the goods or use the services of the cooperative”, and use their size to buy goods and services at lower costs (NCBA, n.d.). “Producer cooperatives are owned by people who produce similar types of products”, and leverage their size to market, brand the product, and gain greater influence over buyers (NCBA, n.d.). “Worker cooperatives are owned and governed by the employees of the business” (NCBA, n.d.). In worker-owned cooperatives, employees gain access to work and experience the benefits of ownership. A purchasing and service cooperative is “… owned and governed by independent business owners, small municipalities and, in some cases, state governments that band together to enhance their purchasing power, lowering their costs and improving their competitiveness and ability to provide quality services” (NCBA, n.d.). Cooperative enterprises are formed through participatory processes that result in legally binding procedures pertaining to governance, administration, and policy infrastructures (e.g., articles of incorporation, bylaws). The cooperative is organized to serve a single group or to comprise a network formed from many single cooperatives. A reference, “How to Organize a Cooperative” promoted using a well-established sequence for setting up a cooperative (NCBA, 1990). A second source offers a guide for constructing rules, procedures and standing orders (ICA, 2007).
35
Cooperatives are structured to meet the social, cultural, and economic elements of the agency mission. Typically a “board of directors” representing members is established to govern the cooperative toward meeting the social and cultural aspects of the mission (ICA, 2005; NCBA, n.d.). As elected officials, directors are charged with upholding cooperative values and principles, guiding business planning, and fulfilling other supervisory responsibilities (Garoyan & Mohn, 1976). In contrast, administrators are commissioned to manage the business and assure economic viability (Fairbairn, 2003). In cooperatives, policies set the business structure and standing orders prescribe how business is conducted (ICA, 2007, pp. 17-19). Typically addressed in policies are membership application and admission requirements, subscription formulas, general assembly representation, committees, and affiliations. Concurrently, recurring formal actions known as standing orders describe how individual are named, appointments are made, term limits are set, voting is conducted, results are certified, and individuals are removed from offices. Described in meeting procedures are the length, frequency, moderator role, agenda formation, language, provision of documents, and directions for sending motions and amendments to member assemblies. Stipulated in procedures were routines for debates, for voting, and for suspending orders. Cooperation Theory: Dualism, Integration, Linkages, Transparency, and Cognition Cooperation is envisioned to increase to the extent dualism, integration and linkages flourish (Fairbairn, 2003). In theory, developing dualism (Fairbairn, 2003) depended upon satisfying oppositional interests (i.e., capital or profits and social needs). Developing satisfaction required choreographing the efforts put forward from “…significant economic and social actors” (ICA, 2005, para. 4). Effective 36
choreographies were those which coordinated the work of managers focused on economics and running the cooperative profitably with the work of directors who lead the agency and invested in meeting social goals. Lacking dualism, cooperatives tended to obsess over economics at the expense of meeting social and cultural aspirations. In theory within a fully integrated cooperative (Fairbairn, 2003), members and beneficiaries engaged in democratically controlled processes whereby activities and operations were influenced. Given the hypothetical value of the cooperative equals the extent to which resources of the membership address unmet member needs, planning needed to integrate three competing needs – ownership, interest, and control. In practice, integration takes the form of governance, administration, and policy intended to unite the needs and wants of members with the products and services born from the resources and intellect of the membership. In theory, linkages encouraged cooperation (Fairbairn, 2003). When well-linked, a cooperative demonstrated how a membership made the member better off and more able to meet customer need: i.e., "…if one does well, the other shares in success” (Fairbairn, 2003, p. 8). Linkages flourished when the membership was drawn toward meeting member needs. Linkages flourished also when efforts toward addressing specific needs, increasing convenience, and improving relations were coordinated to "fit together like hand and glove” (Fairbairn, 2003, p. 9). Named strategies for increasing linkages included engaging members (a) in espousing their shared values (e.g., talking the talk) and (b) in creating and using features designed to meet their needs (e.g., walking the talk). When connected “to the greatest practical extent using innovative or unconventional methods” (Fairbairn, 2003, p. 10), members developed relationships and 37
thereby trust, loyalty and support were encouraged. When tailored and coordinated to the greatest extent, cooperative structure and strategy "…achieve results that are achievable in no other way” (Fairbairn, 2003, p. 9). Transparency strengthened linkages and fostered increased trust, loyalty, participation, leadership, and investment. Transparency resulted from members: (a) coming to understand the effects of external market forces and social and economic trends; (b) acknowledging the differing interests existing among the membership; and (c) relating initiatives to needs. Providing members with regular updated on business, service, and finance matters contributed to developing transparency, as did aligning membership opportunities and responsibilities and structuring (e.g. unitary, opt in, federated, centralized) with the agency mission. In theory, cognition encouraged cooperation. Success was related to the extent members and staff thought about the qualities and stature of the cooperative and related their actions with the success of the agency. Fostering organizational level thinking and learning strengthened the cooperative: e.g., “…paying attention to ‘how co-ops think’ leads to added insights into successful business and service strategies” (Fairbairn, 2003, p. 20). To this end, several strategies were associated with fostering " a thinking cooperative" (Fairbairn, 2003, pp. 19-26): (a) Use mental models or maps to serve as a basis from which to make reasoned change; (b) integrate research; (c) focus on learning; (d) encourage innovation; (e) applaud imaginative efforts; and (f) logically organize processes.
38
Knowledge-Driven Change A host of courses concurred that interest in organizational knowledge management was a derivative of businesses connecting success to the knowledge of their employees (Boersma & Stegwee, 1996; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Drucker, 1993; Gao, Li & Nakamori, 2002; Hendriks & Virens, 1999; Loucopoulos & Kavakli, 1999; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Prusak, 1997; Vasoncelos, Kimble, Gouveia & Kudenko, 2001; Vasconcelos, Gouveia & Kimble, 2002; Wigg, 1997). The literature documented that linking of the success of the businesses with the knowledge of employees, initiated efforts to inventory the business intellect embodied in personnel (Abecker, Bernardi, Hinkelmann, Kuhn & Sintek, 1998; Ives & Jarvenpaa, 1992; Karimi & Konsynski, 1991; Liao, Hinkelmann, Abecker & Sintek, 1999; Manheim, 1992). Shown also was a trend toward interests in capturing knowledge maturing into efforts aimed at expanding and managing intellectual capital (Bahrami, 1996; Castells 1996; Curtis, Hefley & Miller, 1995; Michellone & Zollo, 2000). In education settings, knowledge management focused on the classroom rather than the agency. One approach targeted improving efficiencies of experiences (e.g., orientation, instruction, support, technologies). A second approach used the demands of living and working in a knowledge economy as the impetus for changing learning and teaching models (e.g., Twigg & Oblinger, 1996). A third movement was premised in the idea that "Success in the emerging distributed learning environment" requiring "different organizational structures" (Oblinger, Barone & Hawkins, 2001, p. 13). The restructured models took the form of virtual universities, online colleges, electronic or virtual campuses, cooperatives, consortiums, alliances, and networks (Bates, 2000; Carchidi & 39
Peterson, 2000; Eckel, Affolter-Caine & Green, 2003; Epper & Garn, 2003; Hanna, 2003; Instructional Technology Council, n.d.; Katz et al., 2002; Twigg, 2003; USDOE, 2003). While varied, the restructured models seemed to organize around three principles: (a) Technologies, (b) improved instructional access, efficiency, effectiveness, and (c) providing a means for entrepreneurship that insulated traditional college governance from change (Epper & Garn, 2003, p. 2). A fourth approach borrowed from business-based knowledge management. In "e-knowledge leadership", the college intentionally sought to fuse e-learning and knowledge management through connecting knowledge workers and letting their contact lead to inspiring organizational change (Norris, Mason, Robson, Lefrere & Collier, 2003, p. 16). Knowledge Generation Theories One knowledge generation theory model postulated knowledge was either hard or soft. In examples, hard knowledge was "…seen, shared and communicated” in the form of books, manuals, handbooks, reports, plan, diagrams, or mathematical equations (Addullah, Benest, Evans & Kimble, 2002, p.16). Terms describing hard knowledge included explicit (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), formal (Fleck & Tierney, 1991), knowwhat (Seeley Brown & Duiguid, 1991), and informational (Kogut & Zander, 1992). In contrast, soft knowledge encompassed “…skill, expertise and experience that has become second nature” (Hildreth et al., 2000a). Soft knowledge was perceived to exist in subconscious memories not easily articulated and shared (Abdullah, et al., 2002, p.16). “Such knowledge might include tacit knowledge that cannot be articulated, is internalised in experience and automated skills, internalised in domain knowledge and cultural knowledge, and embedded in practice” (Kimble et al., 1998a, 1998b, p. 3). Terms 40
describing soft knowledge included: tacit (Polyani, 1996), embodied (Fleck & Tierney, 1991), informal (Conklin 1996), and know-how (Seeley Brown & Duiguid, 1991). Soft knowledge included knowing how to solve a particular complex problem (Abdullah et al., 2002). Soft knowledge often escaped the consciousness of even seasoned employees (Dzbor, Paralic & Paralic, 2000). Awareness of soft knowledge lasted through its immediate use and then faded (Vaconselos et al., 2002). Often awareness increased only when knowledge gaps caused by staff departures interrupted the flow of work (Kimble et al., 1998a, 1998b). A second knowledge generation theory envisioned knowledge migrating on a continuum ranging from harder to softer. The nature of the content and other external circumstances (e.g., timing, conditions) influenced the point at which knowledge resided on the continuum (Buckingham Shum, 1998; Swan, Newell, Scarborough & Hislop, 1999). While in a soft state knowledge escaped consciousness and capture, when reduced to granular bits, knowledge became hard and pristine. Knowledge moved from a harder state more easily when staff willingly engaged in articulating what was known. A third knowledge generation theory postulated knowledge existed as a duality. Premised in autopoietic theory, in duality knowledge was formed from nontransferable experiences and from the continuously developing history of experiences (Hildreth & Kimble, 2002; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Vicari, von Krogh, Roos & Mahnke, 1996; Wenger, 2003). In communities, knowledge was generated from two distinct, but complementary and inseparable processes: (a) participation or “…taking part…in relations with others…both action and connection” (Wenger, 2003, p.55) and (b)
41
reification or “…giving form…by producing objects that congeal this experience into ‘thingness’” (Wenger, 2003, p. 58). Knowledge Management Strategies The four existing knowledge management (KM) strategies are purposed to help organizations work smarter. No matter the form taken, KM is intended to improve problem solving and simplify decision-making (Abdullah et al., 2002; Schreiber, Crubezy & Musen, 1999). Some KM strategies are focused on information-based hard knowledge, while others involve people-based soft knowledge. In the instances when KM was focused on soft knowledge, more attention was paid to “…managing people, what they know, their social interactions in performing tasks, their decision making, the way information flows and the enterprise’s work culture" (Abdullah et al., 2002, p. 16). Notably, KM strategies were most effective when aligned with organization values, goals, and needs. Information Management The Information Management (IM) approach to KM was popular among those who agreed pristine knowledge existed in granular bits and those who valued hard knowledge over soft. While technology dependent, IM was not a technology (Abdullah et al., 2002; Schrieber et al., 2002). Rather, IM strategies focused on capturing and codifying hard or harder knowledge to share static knowledge (e.g.., policy, finance, production reports, customer profiles) in electronically accessed books, manuals, handbooks, reports, or diagrams (Vasoncelos, Kimble, Gouveia, & Kudenko, 2001, Vasconcelos et al., 2002). Although IM made information more readily available, several studies pointed out the success of IM depended upon making the right information 42
available at the right time to the right people in the right way (Kaniclides & Kimble, 1995; Kimble & McLoughlin, 1995). When IM planning did not address these types of contextual matters, initiatives intended to resolve communication problems only added to them (Kimble et al., 1998a & 1998b). Two strategies were promoted for fitting IM to the context: (a) PAS (People, Activities, and Systems); and (b) other technology, social and integrationist models (Kaniclides & Kimble, 1995; Kimble & McLoughlin, 1995). Expert evaluations of IM indicated the approach was not suited to managing softer knowledge, or to companies that were maturing rapidly, increasing in size, information flow, and dynamism, or to those with more complex knowledge needs (Hildreth et al., 2000a, 2000b; Macintosh, Filby & Tate, 1998; Schrieber et al., 1999; Vasconcelos et al., 2001, 2002). Capture-Codify-Store The capture-codify-store (CCS) approach to KM focused on capturing information that was important to practitioners. While CSS resulted in capturing and storing hard knowledge, the approach was invested also in driving soft knowledge toward a hardened state (Hildreth, Kimble & Wright, 1998). Because CSS involved detailed coding, the approach was understandably more suited to frequent straightforward problems than to infrequent, unique, or complex problems. Largely successful, CSS movements were susceptible to negative results. In some instances, increased levels of concern and negative attitudes resulted as the value of stored knowledge from experts became more credible than the advisement coming from frontline workers (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Roschelle, 1996). Expert evaluations raised two additional concerns: (a) CSS does not incorporate verbally communicated informal knowledge (e.g. war stories 43
by Orr, 1990, 1997); and (b) A CSS movement implies soft knowledge is not valuable and draws attention away from knowledge developing in social settings (Kimble et al., 1998a, 1998b). Social Governance A third KM approach involved social governance (Hildreth et al. 1998; Kimble et al., 1998a, 1998b; Wenger, 2003; Wenger et al., 2002). This approach endorsed the value of learning that occurs from interacting with others. In this approach, energies are invested in coming to understand the effects of social governance on the organization (Hildreth et al., 1998). Communities of practice. The effects of social governance on knowledge are observable in communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Unlike formally organized structures, communities form freely and may span several levels of an organization, or span and link multiple organizations. Communities are comprised of on six elements – domain, community of people, practice, capabilities, spaces and places, and representations and artifacts (Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003, p. 35). Functioning was associated with the viability of the community collaboration infrastructure. Identified as requisite to a viable infrastructure were: (a) imagination facilities for addressing orientation, exploration, and reflection; (b) engagement facilities for addressing mutuality, competence, and continuity; and (c) alignment facilities for addressing convergence, coordination, and arbitration (Wenger, 2003, p. 237). In the community “…groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic…deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger et al., 2002, p. 4). Formed in the context of the community 44
is a privileged content whereby the focus and cadence of the group are determined by participants themselves (i.e., insiders). Because they are involved in this empowering way, participants more readily embrace, customize, and apply their experiences in the group to the nuances of their daily work. In the course of participating an intuitive sense for how the community works and what positions a community might take when handling a topic is developed among participants. A phenomenon known as legitimate peripheral participation (LPP) is credited with diffusing knowledge, while at the same time improving the base knowledge within the context of every interaction. When first engaged in a community, new members tend to position themselves at the periphery. When positioned on the periphery, new members attend but are not fully engaged in activities. As they gain experience from participating at the periphery and find their contributions to reifying knowledge are legitimized, the new members are drawn to the core of the community. These insiders then play an instrumental role in dissemination of lessons learned in the community of practice. As they interact with others in the course of daily work, the insiders relay lessons learned in the community to others, in turn relay the lessons to still other individuals until eventually whole groups are affected (e.g., departments and communities residing in organizations to which community participants belong, the entire organization, the network of organizations to which their organizations belong). Without aid of an insider who has a relationship with them, outsiders struggle with detecting and explaining practices and with understanding, embracing, customizing, and applying the lessons learned in the community to their work implemented outside the community.
45
Several characteristics of sustainable communities were identified. Endurance was related to members remaining passionate about interests held in common, embracing shared values, and feeling their memberships provided a useful outcome (i.e., utilitarianism), created a sense of belonging, and reinforced their developing identity. The liveliest communities were those: (a) able to connect members on a continuous basis; (b) providing opportunities for members to apply their collective imagination to solving important problems (e.g. visioning or pilots); and (c) empowered to self-identify and align community standards, methods of operation, styles of communications, and boundaries. Leaders of communities affected the pace of community development. Communities were strengthened by leaders who: (a) encouraged participation, but avoid presuming member duties; (b) integrated public and private interactions; (c) interacted with members at the core and those at the periphery; (d) recognized and reflected on contributions of individuals to the work of the group; (e) credited the community for its accomplishments; (f) tied the work of the community to the larger environment; (g) secured resources needed to support participation; and (h) occasionally interjected special activities into routine functioning (Wenger, 2002, pp. 241-262). Most important of these was leadership able to help members understand their individual investments of time directly equated to progress. Communities formed in work settings for work-related purposes evolve under the direction of members, but are encouraged by company management playing a supportive role (Hildreth et al. 1998; Kimble et al., 1998a, 1998b; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 2000, 2003; Wenger et al., 2002). When management empowered communities to choose 46
what to formalize, when to formalize, and who to involve, the communities operating within organizations flourished and companies benefitted. Communities were encouraged also by management that: (a) connected employees with shared interests; (b) provided the time and tools needed to interact; (c) bestowed attention on contributions to the workplace made by communities; and (d) granted the community freedoms to explore and act on matters within their scope. Management that positioned communities within existing company workflows, empowered them to address real problems, and did not overly define their operation encouraged the community to generate business value. Lean thinking. Originally developed in manufacturing lean thinking and integrated into healthcare and service settings, another form of socially governed KM known as lean thinking is not apparent in studies of education settings. In theory, lean thinking improved workflows and averted producing information waste through specific communications and knowledge sharing techniques. In lean thinking, employees are gathered in groups (i.e., cells) that aspire to uncover and refine their role in the value chain. The “flow” or “value stream” perspective represents a shift from vertical to horizontal thinking. Horizontal thinking means looking across the traditional vertical structures of functions and departments to connect activities in the stream of value flowing from suppliers, through the organization, and on to customers. In other words, concentrating on overall flow means focusing on system efficiency rather than on just the point efficiency of individual elements in your organization. (Rother, 2002) The reduced response time is translated to decreased cost, lowered prices, and improved satisfaction. Lean thinking was associated with several hallmark strategies. When preplanning, dealing with variability, and aspiring to shorten the design to delivery period, cells 47
implemented total productive maintenance (TPM), which “capitalizes on proactive and progressive maintenance methods and calls upon the knowledge and cooperation of others" (Kilpatrick, 2003, p. 2). Cells also focused on total quality management (TQM), which utilizes "Kaizan” or continuous improvement of every aspect of processing (Kilpatrick, 2003, p. 2). Empowering cells to use "the pull" (i.e., feedback provided by customers) was credited with groups reducing out inefficiencies immediately and resulted in avoiding the waiting period associated with institutionally issued redirection (Nave, 2002). Aware of key points in processing and able to use the "pull", workers trained in lean thinking practiced “Kanban” to affect how goods or services were organized, ordered, and delivered. As a result, Takt” or the time needed to plan, produce, and deliver goods and services was decreased. In their work, cells used a "bullwhip" technique to apply the lessons learned with prior customers to improving interactions with future customers (Rother, 2002, p.6). Other techniques used by cells included: point-of-use storage (POUS), quick changeover, batch size reduction, visual controls, concurrent engineering (cross-functional teams), and workplace organization (e.g., 5S: sort, set, shine, standardize, sustain). Social-Technical Approaches In social-technical KM, technology-based social endeavors form the privileged context in which knowledge is developed and managed. Both virtual teams and virtual communities of practice are aligned with social-technical KM. To identify how knowledge production and management are encouraged in both setting, several studies of the two forums are recapped. (Also, see App. B and App. C for information on leading virtual teams and developing virtual communities of practice.) 48
Migrating from virtual teams to virtual communities of practice. Kimble et al. (1998a, 1998b) examined the effects of technology on group process and compared virtual teams and communities. The authors speculated that virtual teams started under an "…externally imposed structure and membership” would evolve to become virtual communities as connectivity deepened member relationships and interactivity became more spontaneous (Kimble et al., 1998a, p. 29). The authors identified literature that endorsed using technologies to effectively support interaction and develop relationships between far-flung members of groups (i.e., Castells, 1996; Conkar & Kimble, 1997; Evans & Sims, as cited in Cooper & Jackson, 1997, 269-291; Fernback, 1997; Lipnack & Stamps, 1997; Seeley Brown & Solomon Grey, 1995.; Williams, 1994). Also referenced was literature that described virtual teams and communities as group-oriented, technology-dependent, and compatible with soft knowledge (i.e., Duiguid & Seeley Brown, 1996; Foote & Manville, 1996; Goldstein, 1993; Orr, 1990; Stewart, 1996). Authors postulated that virtual teams could serve effectively as a natural beginning for developing a more organic virtual community, and suggested that leaders looking to foster a virtual community from members that would likely not ever meet by chance might begin by first establishing a virtual team. Relevance of distance education strategies to virtual teams and communities. After pointing out similarities between distance education and virtual communities, Na Ubon and Kimble (2002) suggested strategies for remedying social barriers in distance learning were applicable to virtual communities. Studies on the effects of limited opportunities for in-person interaction and the absence of visual and voice cues on relationship building were discussed (Hildreth et al., 2000a, 2000b; Kimble et al., 2000). 49
Also identified were trends showing language and cultural barriers increased as distances between participants increased (Van den Branden, 2001). Reviewed also were studies showing how easily trust and collegiality were disrupted in distance education courses (Handy, 1995, cited in Kimble et al, 2000; Herriot, Hirsch & Reilly, 1998; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), and studies that showed how expecting low levels of collaboration detracted from individuals engaging with peers, materials and the leader (Harasim, 1987; Hiltz, 1986; Kimble et al., 2000; Von Krough, Ichijo & Nonaka, 2000). After recapping the problems associated with distance education courses, Na Ubon and Kimble (2002) proposed that lacking intervention virtual community building would fall victim to the same. The authors postulated that working on communicating effectively in the virtual community would bolster building relationships and trust between far-flung members. Predictable evolution of virtual community of practice. A study of an international actuarial business demonstrated how to identify a virtual community (Kimble et al., 1998a, 1998b). Data collection methods included a survey, follow-up interviews, and an analysis of documents. To begin, 1500 employees from company locations across Europe received invitations to participate in a survey. Of these, 567 responded to amass a 37.8% return. Using five metrics, researchers analyzed the returns and found 98 respondents reported behaviors indicative of communities of practice (i.e., in regular contact, shared projects, problem solved by talking, learned from discussions, and swapped anecdotes or experiences). After gathering more data in interviews with 98 of the respondents, researchers identified the technologies supporting interactivity. Of these, email and telephone were the most popular mediums for sharing anecdotes and discussing projects. Using demographic information submitted by respondents, researchers mapped data to 50
two variables – same location and other locations. Patterns emerged and collectively suggested the international virtual community of practice evolved in three stages. In stage one, a localized community developed in response to informal contacts made between prospective members or to officially assigned group work. In stage two, individuals doing similar work in other locations in the same region interacted with the local group. In stage three, groups in the region linked with other similar groups located abroad. Evidence suggested also that co-location does not prevent employees from feeling they are on the social periphery, nor does co-location prevent employees from interacting with those located elsewhere. Local communities appeared to connect outward from several locations and to eventually link to those developing elsewhere. Electronic communications provided connectivity, and virtual workspaces increased interactivity. Capacities for tolerating tensions and solving problems were associated with informal conversation-based relations more so than officially assigned work. Need for developing a common purpose and language and for developing a shared history from shared experiences was underscored. Also highlighted was the importance of figuring out how to create and share new knowledge. Especially important given the virtual nature of communicating was the provision of technologies and information needed to communicate formally and informally. Collectively patterns implied communities with distributed memberships would benefit from knowledge management movements that addressed soft knowledge, social processing, and technical supports. Also noted was a need for exploring not only what a network of virtual communities held in common, but also their peculiarities.
51
Problems in social conventions and governance. When assessing the modern workplace, Kimble and Selby (2000) hypothesized that increasing numbers of employees worked concurrently in physical places and virtual workspaces. Their review of the literature suggested employees managed their interactions in the two arenas in isolation. They felt obligated to coordinate their work pertaining to their physicality with co-located peers, and to coordinate their work pertaining to other locations with individuals located elsewhere. The isolated approach to organizing and managing work lead researchers to conclude employees needed managers able to lead them in learning how to negotiate and connect the dots between the social conventions and governance of the physical and virtual workspaces. Understanding builds trust and success. Kimble et al. (2000) examined team types, problems commonly experienced, and processes for preparing individuals to lead groups. In the review, the research on teams in virtual organizations, workplaces, communities, e-commerce and telework was assessed on the basis of three variables – time, place, and organization (i.e., Benson-Armer & Hsieh, 1997; Chesbrough & Teece, 1996; Duguid, & Seeley Brown, 1996; Foote & Manvillle, 1996; Grimshaw, Mott & Roberts, 1997; Igbaria & Tan, 1997; Jarvenpaa & Liedner, 1998; Knoll & Javenpaa, 1997; Li & Gillespie, 1994; Lindstaedt, 1996; Lipnack & Stamps, 1997; Sandusky, 1997; Seeley Brown & Duguid, 1991; Stewart, 1996; Townsend, De Marie & Hendickson, 1998; Wenger & Snyder, 2000) Developed from the analysis was a schema comprised of eight team types that included(Kimble et al., 2000, p. 3): (a) same time, place and organization (ST-SP-SO); (b) different time, same place and organization (DT-SP-SO); (c) different time and place, and same organization (DT-DP-SO); (d) different time, place 52
and organization (DT-DP-DO); (e) same time and place, and different organization (STSP-DO); (f) same time, and different place and organization (ST-DP-DO); (g) same time, different place and same organization (ST-DP-SO); and (h) different time, same place and different organization (DT-SP-DO). After using the schema to classify teams from eight European countries, researchers investigated the barriers experienced by teams from a research consultancy and software, law, secretarial services, medical services, and telemarketing firms that encompassed varied numbers of organizations, time zones, and places. Data were collected through personal interviews, from correspondence exchanged in e-mail, telephone call, and by fax, and from company reports. Data were sorted into technological and nontechnological categories, and the research team preliminarily concluded that a virtual team “…encompasses complex social, economic, managerial and psychological issues as well as organisational and technical processes” (Kimble et al., 2000, p. 9). Problems associated with the technological category were assessed for root causes. Three main causes were identified: (a) Unreliable systems, incompatible networks, slow computers, and periods of traffic congestion; (b) adequacy and accessibility of technological supports, and (c) costs and limits of equipment and software designed for a conventional office. Three recommendations were offered to managers: (a) Set up integrated broadband telecommunications; (b) plan for upgrading or buying new technologies; and (c) select technologies based on functionality. Problems associated with the nontechnological category were assessed for root causes, also. Three concerns emerged: (a) Typically issues arise in the context of social 53
relations or governing conventions; (b) problems affect both workers and their managers; and (c) nontechnological issues are more complex as solving them depends on building trust rather than on increasing control. The relevance of trust was explained as follows: Trust is at the heart of the matter. That seems obvious and trite yet most of our oganisations tend to be arranged on the assumption that people cannot be trusted or relied on even in tiny matters…If we are to enjoy the efficiencies and other benefits of the virtual organisation we will have to rediscover how to run organisations based more on trust than on control. Virtuality requires trust to make it work: Technology on its own is not enough. (Handy, 1995 in Kimble et al., 2000, 5) Two recommendations were offered: (a) Provide everyone with a general frame of reference at the onset; and (b) prepare managers to oversee work conducted virtually. Benefits of documenting processes. Reported in several sources, this study investigated the factors contributing to the development of soft knowledge in co-located and distributed communities (Hildreth, 2000; Hildreth & Kimble, 2002; Hildreth et al., 2000a, 2000b). The case study involved an international information technology management team (IITMan). Team members included four individuals co-located in the United Kingdom (UKIT), five individuals co-located in the United States (USIT), and an individual in Japan (JIT). Researchers delved into the functioning of one group (UKIT) and its relationship with the community at-large (IITMan). Data were collected through firsthand observations made over a 3-day period, and from files depicting roles, relations, and media, and files containing documentation used by the team. Using a five-affinity model classification developed by Beyer and Holtzblatt (1997), data were sorted into issues of flow, sequence, artifact, culture, and physicality. Findings showed a virtual community existed and implied three factors contributed to community building: (a) Interspersing regular virtual contact with occasional in-person activities; (b) choosing 54
media based on the work of the group rather than on bells and whistles or novelty; and (c) engaging members in collaboratively creating shared documents. The engagements involving the creation of shared documents contributing to developing relationships, mining knowledge from the collective, and converting knowledge into a reusable form. Development of artificial intelligence: A review on the status of artificial intelligence hinted at the role the medium could play in the future of knowledge management (Abdullah et al., 2002). After suggesting that introduction of viable technology information management would lead to knowledge engineering (i.e., artificial intelligence produced on a perpetual basis), authors critiqued four knowledge-modeling techniques (i.e., CommonKADS, Protégé 2000, Unified Modelling Language/UMLUML, Object Constraint Language/OCL, and Multiperspective modeling). In their analysis, researchers applied the European standards to develop comparisons of key features (i.e., knowledge assets, process, culture, structure, process breakdowns, tasks, responsible agents, people, knowledge, content, communication method, system design, implementation areas, effects, pre-deployment analysis). The CommonKADS technique was rated most highly for the following four reasons. (1) The de facto European standard was met. (2) The technique aligned with standards articulated by other experts (i.e., de Hoog, Benus, Vogler & Metselaar, 1996; Schreiber et al., 1999; Vollebregt, Teije, van Harmelen, Lei & Mosseveld, 1999). (3) CommonKADS incorporated a suite of management and analysis tools. (4) The technique incorporated opportunities for organizational and task modeling. While admitting knowledge engineering and artificial intelligence were under developed, researchers offered two observations to futurists. (1) Choices made regarding 55
techniques and technologies should align with the intended purpose (i.e., information management or knowledge engineering). (2) Each new release of technology supports developing a more sophisticated form of artificial intelligence, so opportunity exists to move ahead with knowledge engineering in advance of perfected technology becoming available. Core Ideas Eleven core ideas emerged from the review of the literature. (1) A capacity for boundless social networking exists today. (2) Some types of knowledge are socially constructed. (3) Effective knowledge management strategies are situated or tailored. (4) When working toward leading organizational knowledge management by example, involve key personnel who are able to recruit and engage others. (5) A user-friendly infrastructure aids in demystifying distributed work and contributes to learning. (6) Cooperating is liberating and empowering as it allows one to borrow from the experience and resources of others. (7) Cooperating is improved by processes that create a common ground. (9) Effective collaboration infrastructures integrate cooperation theory, socialtechnical knowledge management practices, and virtual teams and/or communities of practice, and lessons learned thereby. (10) Better decisions on the collaboration infrastructure result when knowledge generation and management are considered. (11) When widely distributed memberships make meeting face-to-face impractical and too expensive, a collaboration infrastructure that depends on technology may effectively support group work.
56
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY Described are the design strategy, theoretical framework, scientific foundation, data collection and analysis methods, and assurances. Context The study investigated a collaboration infrastructure of an online Interinstitutional consortium from a community of practice perspective. The case involved the Distance Minnesota consortium and did not consider member colleges individually or the state college and university system at-large. Interest in creating and planning thoughtful change (improvements) created a need to understand the interplay between internal (i.e., internalized lived experiences) and external (i.e., collaboration infrastructure). The plan assumed involving stakeholders would generate practical wisdom on how to foster collaboration, and thus practitioners from groups governing and operating the consortium were engaged as participants. In the traditions of action research (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 31) the researcher was an insider. The inquiry unfolded in three phases with the initial findings from each phase informing subsequent phases. Found in Table 1 are the associated events, participants, tools, data, analysis, and assurances. Design Strategy Theoretical underpinnings and appraisals of related scientific foundations influenced the design. An Internal Review Board approved the plan. Contextual (i.e., consortium leaders) and research (i.e., dissertation committee) experts provided counsel. 57
Table 1 Case Study Design and Implementation Plan #
Events
Participant
Tools
Data
Analysis
Assurances
1
Focus group met by phone to identify purposive sample.
Experts (board).
Force field analysis (Schmuck, 2006).
Prospective participant list.
Expert evaluation.
Open invitation posted.
E-mail sent to recruit participation.
Prospective participants.
Message to foreshadow problem.
E-mail Confirmation .
Demographic comparisons.
Note included mentor contact information.
Online survey opportunity offered.
Volunteers from purposive sample.
Survey (Hildreth, 2000) in Zoomerang® .
Responses. Comments. Report on results.
Demographic comparisons. 5 metrics (Kimble et al., 1998a, 1998b). ANOVA using Minitab®.
Provided opportunity to comment. Evaluation by expert (statistician). Member checking of drafts.
Orientation to etic perspective.
Make a comment form in eFolio®. Semistructured interviews (Hildreth, 2000).
Written comments.
Personal interviews to discover emic perspective.
Volunteers from purposive sample. Volunteers from purposive sample.
Five-affinity (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998). Demographic comparisons. Coding elements and facilities using QDA Miner®. Member checking.
Committee approved literature review. Participant approval of transcripts. Member checking of drafts.
Translated themes to improvement/a ction plan.
Volunteers from purposive sample.
STP (Schmuck, 2006, pp. 1112). Contextual design (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998; Holtzblatt et al., 2005).
Demographic comparisons. Force field analysis (Schmuck, 2006). Five-affinity (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998).
Expert input (web staff, external facilitation). Evaluation by expert (facilitator). Member checked drafts.
2
3
Field notes and interview transcripts. Drafts of themes, constructs, and thick descriptions.
58
Prototype. Field notes (observation) . Written comments. Final report.
Theoretical Framework Under the influences of two overarching theories, the study sought to understand the lived experiences of individuals and to translate their collectively lived experience into practical wisdom for improving the consortium collaboration infrastructure. A foremost influence was field theory, which postulated, “Human behavior is the function of both the person and the environment” (Lewin, 1948, as cited in Deaux & Wrightman, 1988, p. 9). A second influence was grounded theory, ""a theory whose components and their relationships to one another are embedded in reality" (Crowl, 1996, p. 218). The family of change theories (Kezar, 2001) provided a foundation for understanding the change dynamics involved in collaborating. The theories associated the dynamics of change with evolutionary (i.e., adaptations made from responding to given conditions) and teleological tendencies (i.e., genesis), cyclical patterning (i.e., life cycles), dialectical or political arguments, social cognition (i.e., openness developed from observing others in action), and cultural breakthroughs (i.e., overcoming barriers that otherwise bounded possibility). The framework of change theories helped with both identifying the encouragements (i.e., drivers) and impediments (i.e., inhibitors) to collaboration experienced by individuals, departments and whole institutions and with relating these to the collaboration infrastructure. Also influential were organizational development theories, which presumed organizations were strengthened by employees individually coming to understand the incumbent and intended structure so they might learn new methods for engaging more effectively in activities. Drawing on the work of Emery (1981) similarities between the consortium and the socio-technical organization were acknowledged. Through the lens of 59
organizational development theories, the probability that individuals involved in the consortium were interested in meeting their social needs while also enjoying the efficiencies of a technology-oriented workplace became evident. The likelihood of communication and cultural issues affecting collaboration was emphasized by organizational development theories also, as was the importance of developing crossfunctional communication and a forward-focused culture. All parties speak with tongues. Our inquiring system should look more like a multi-disciplinary, cross-organizational community–including academics, consultants, managers, and other stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, foundations, and universities) –who combine their research and practice skills to increase the competence and legitimacy of community-based organizing initiatives in business and civic domains. The learning community must be capable of pushing the evolution of future practice, not merely the evaluation of past practice. (Trist, 1981, cited in Ropopohl, 2001) Consequently, the project sought to engage operators who were knowledgeable about the system (i.e., practitioners) as participants, invited them to assess the entirety of the operation and not just its most familiar component parts, and engaged them in conversations about the infrastructure needed to support their work. Following the lead of social learning theories the research plan intentionally sought to engage practitioners in learning about organizational norms and practices affected collaboration. Seeking to create double loop learning, the design incorporated reciprocal cycles of research and action intended to "develop theory and give guidance to practical action" (Moser, 1975, as cited by Moser 1999a, para. 2). Through a series of individualized and group events, the research plan intended to foster "critical selfknowledge” (Habermas, 1968) that would aid in practitioner-participants breaking free from dominating forces and established forms of knowing so they might envision improvements and forecast the probable effects of changing. Embedded in the research 60
design were opportunities for assessing espoused theory, what is said or acknowledged, with theory in action, what is reflected in everyday practice (Argyris, 1991; Argyris & Schön, 1974, 1996). Participants were encouraged to reach outside lived experiences and apply external information to the immediate context (Krűger, n.d.; Lauer, 1973; Morgan, 1997; Owens, 1991). Informative to the research plan also were social-psychological theories that related groups to individuals and individuals to groups. Incorporated were concepts from sociology (i.e., life-world by Berger, 2000), anthropology (i.e., culture by Goodenough, 1971), and the psychology of adult learning (e.g., adult learning by Cross, 1976; andragogy by Knowles, 1975; connectionism by Thorndike, 1913; experiential learning by Rogers & Freiberg, 1994; phenomonography by Entwistle & Ramsden, 1983). Theories explaining interactivity, such as group dynamics, sociodrama, and psychodrama (e.g., Moreno, 1987), individual development theory, and self-awareness theory were influential, too. Additionally impactful were theories explaining relationships, such as the Johari Window, which conceptualized interpersonal characteristics as four quadrants and explained their effects on relating with others (Luft, 1969). Community development theory influenced planning, also. These theories related employee involvement with organizational problem solving. Findings of a 1930 study by Mayo (n.d.) that demonstrated a relationship between the sense of self and productivity, and showed that involving the practitioner in group-oriented problem solving provided a business benefit, pointed the study toward uncovering the perspective of individuals as a means for adjusting the organization to become more workable within
61
their paradigms. Additionally considered was literature explaining the importance of integrating perspectives to understanding the situation fully: E.g. Circular behavior is the basis for integration. If your business is so organized that you can influence a co-manager while he is influencing you, so organized that a workman has an opportunity of influencing you as you have of influencing him; if there is an interactive influence going on all through the time between you, power may be built up. Throughout history we see that control brings disastrous consequences whenever it outruns integration. (Parker-Follett, 1933, excerpt 4) With the support of community development theory, the research design intended to engage stakeholders to collaboration (i.e., practitioners) and to assure that from these practitioner-participants both frontline staff and the managers points of views were solicited. Scientific Foundations By virtue of the problem under consideration, the study was grounded in the practical disciplines, more so than in theoretical disciplines of practical sciences: The purpose of a theoretical discipline is the pursuit of truth through contemplation; its telos is the attainment of knowledge for knowledge sake. The purpose of productive sciences is to make something; their telos is the production of some kind of artifact. The practical disciplines are those sciences which deal with ethical and political life; their telos is practical wisdom and knowledge. (Carr & Kemmis, 1986, 32) In seeking to bring the lived experiences of practitioner-participants to their consciousness, the study intended to develop practical wisdom and knowledge pertaining to the collaboration infrastructure of the consortium. An analysis compared the problem with the three research paradigms – post positivist, positivist and praxis. The analysis ruled out positivism, objective science, and quantitative research, leaving postpositivism, naturalistic inquiry, and qualitative research, and praxis or true praxis, collective self-inquiry or reflexive critique and action 62
research as possible fits. Needing to explore the interplay between the internal (i.e., practitioners) and the environment (infrastructure), the study was positioned in praxis. Accepting of the ontological and epistemological traditions associated with praxis, the research plan incorporated corresponding features. With an ontological platform accepting of multiple realities, the study anticipated that practitioners' interpretations of experiences lived in the same social, economic, political, and cultural setting could vary. Embracing an epistemological position (i.e., “…branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge and the process by which knowledge is acquired and validated", Borg et al., 1996, p. 16) that knowledge was generated from the interplay of the internal and external, the research design incorporated individual and group activities and periods of interaction and reflection. Accepting the axiological factors associated with praxis, the research plan sought to uncover the values and biases held by those involved in the study. By design, the study aimed to explore and change social practices by including “practitioners from the real social world in all phases of inquiry” (Lewin, 1948, as cited in Kemmis & McTaggert, 1988, p. 8). In the spirit of true praxis, the study sought to find out and act upon what practitioners involved in the situation felt was “…a wise and prudent practical judgment in how to act in this situation” (Carr & Kemmis, 1986, p. 190). Social Science with Hermeneutical Tendencies The research design was aligned with the social sciences for three reasons. First, the study intended to explore the inner workings of a community of practice, and the literature credited social science with providing a scientific means for studying human behavior (Roberts, n.d.). Second, the study intended to explore the state of affairs from 63
the perspective of community practitioners, and according to the literature social science typically produced "…insight into the way people interpret events from their own perspective” (Stringer, 2004, p. 15). Third, the study aimed to helping practitioners understand how their community worked, and the literature pointed out social sciences typically explored “…the multiple dimensions of socially constructed behavior” (Stringer, 2004, p. 15). The close association with praxis and phronesis aligned the study with the interpretive, critical, and hermeneutical branches of social science (Herr & Anderson, 2005, pp. 27-28). Thus, the plan intended to explore the socially formed historical reality of participants. In the hermeneutical tradition (Gadamer, n.d., as cited in Bernstein, 1983, p. 136), the study solicited participation from those involved in the situation (i.e., consortium practitioners) so the "thing itself" (i.e., collaboration infrastructure) was grasped "in person" (from the context of lived experiences). Since in hermeneutics, knowing how to better oneself and humanity is an outcome generated from heightening consciousness (Aristotle, trans. 1976.), the plan intentionally engaged participants in critical reflection. Activities were purposed to emancipate participants "…from the dictates or compulsions of tradition, precedent, habit, coercion or self-deception” (Carr & Kemmis, 1986). Additionally activities were purposed also to uncover "justified prejudices" pertaining to the immediate context and to the future of the consortium (Bernstein, 1983, p. 137). Aligned with the tradition of hermeneutics, the study involved procedures that were sometimes more circular than linear (Bernstein, 1983, p. 30 & 136).
64
Practical Action Research Case Study Similarly to investigations of similar topics, this inquiry took form of a case study (i.e., Coghlan & Brannick, 2005; Herr & Anderson, 2005; Johnson, 2005a; Kinchloe, 1991; Sagor, 2005; Schmuck, 2006; Stringer, 2004; Zuber-Skerrit, 1992, 1995). The research plan involved an "… in-depth study of instances of a phenomenon in its natural context and from the perspective of the participants involved in the phenomenon” (Borg et al., 1996, p. 545). Using an ethnographic approach, data were collected from practitioner-participants and from these emerged a “picture” or “portrait” and “theoretical sensitivity” that was interpreted into practical wisdom about the collaboration infrastructure (Crowl, 1996, p. 212). An analysis affirmed the research goals, theoretical framework, and scientific foundations suited action research. (See Table 2.) Anticipating the same benefits accrued in other action research, the study was expected to produce findings and other residual benefits related to personal development (e.g., improved abilities to interpret feedback, communicate ideas, interact with peers, and contribute ideas). An anticipated by-product of the study was increased interest in involving the right people, asking the right questions, and creating actionable intellectually-tested ideas. Aligned with the hallmarks of action research established by Lewin in the 1940's, the study involved "techne" (i.e., specific techniques) to capture "the known" (i.e., ‘here and now’ reality) from "the knowers" (i.e., practitioners).Copying the distinctive pattern of action research (Stringer, 2004, p. 5), the study involved a real setting and problem, practitioners, change, reflection, participation, inclusion, sharing, understanding, repetition, practices, and community. 65
Table 2 Relationship between Traditional and Action Research and the Study Traditional Research
Action Research
Study
Focuses on explanation and truth.
Focuses on establishment of shared understandings, improvement, and interventions.
This study focuses on upgrading the consortium capacity to develop a shared understanding about organizational changes related to improving learning online.
Knowledge oriented; expansion of the existing body of knowledge and its generalization.
Development oriented; concerns with planned change in one’s own group or organization.
The study intends to develop the organization through reasoned and planned change.
Objective data from representative samples.
Reality that incorporates multiple perspectives from significantly involved individuals.
The study accepts that practical wisdom will develop from gathering data on the perspectives of practitioners who are member of governing and operating groups.
Engages other professionals in developing universally applicable theories.
Engages peers in studying local problems and developing tentative theories that guide the change and improvement process.
The study proposes to engage practitioners in developing theories on how to improve the consortium collaboration infrastructure.
Source: Developed from Practical Action Research for Change (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. by R. Schmuck, 2006, p.23.
66
Like action research, the study sought to "…engage others in the process of inquiry…with the intent of solving a problem related to their educational work together” (Stringer, 2004, p.6). At key points, the iterative model engaged practitioners in a series of spiraling steps, “…each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action and factfinding about the result of the action” (Lewin, 1948, p. 206). In setting the details of the research plan, the fit of the varying action research types was assessed (Kemmis & McTaggert, 1988; McCutcheon & Jurg, 1990; McKernan, 1991; Dick, 1993; Holter & Schwartz-Barcott, 1993; Masters, 2000). Considered were: (a) Technical or technical-collaborative, scientific-technical, traditional, and positivist research; (b) practical or mutual-collaborative, deliberative, and interpretivist research; and (c) emancipatory or participatory, enhancement, and critical research. While addressing real problems in theory-based scientific procedures and involving an iterative investigation process, the three held varied positions on knowledge creation, sought different types of data, and engaged practitioners to varying extents. Practical action research was selected from the three types of action research because it aligned with the telos of the problem (i.e., practical wisdom) and linked to praxis, purposefulness, or deliberate doing (i.e., methods linked to developing practical wisdom). By design, the plan intended to expose the emic or practitioner perspective, introduced the etic or external perspective (Borg et al., 1996, p. 548) and uncover “…the subjective dimensions of the human experience” (Stringer, 2004, p. 25). Following suit with practical action research, in the course of the study, practitioners were engaged in assessing their experiences, in constructing a shared mental map of their shared practice, and in generating ideas for improving the collaboration infrastructure. In the process, 67
practitioners both affected and were affected by their emergent contextual understanding. Additionally, data took the form of ideas, which were "…personal, subjective and never fully formed…constantly being formed and being influenced by the situation” (Grundy, 1982, as cited in Kemmis & McTaggert, 1988, p. 357). Instrumentation, Data Collection, Analysis Methods, and Quality Control Data collection and analysis methods drew upon former studies. Collection and analysis methods were patterned after a study of business-oriented co-located clusters of varying sizes that operated as an internationally-distributed virtual community of practice (Hildreth, 2000). Also incorporated were procedures used in studies of other Interinstitutional consortiums (Fulmer, 2002; Johnson, 2005b) and communities of practice (Kimble et al., 1998a, 1998b; Hildreth, 2000; Kock, 2005; Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003; Wenger, 2003; Wenger et al., 2002). In keeping with the spiraling forum of action research, the project unfolded in three phases. While expected to be flexible, interactive, less controlled, more interpretive, less precise, more intimate, and contextualized, the plan was expected to be orderly and scientific, also. In a balanced approach intended to be flexible but also orderly and scientific, each phase began with reconnaissance (i.e., consulting literature, experts, and members). In each phase, practitioner-participants participated in reconnaissance to synthesize ideas drafted in prior stages, identified opportunities and challenges, developed and assessed improvement ideas that emerged, reflected on their experiences, and considered revisions to the next steps. Studies of similar topics and recommendations of experts informed the design of data collection and analysis procedures (Borg et al., 1996; Coghlan & Brannick, 2005; 68
Crowl, 1996; Herr & Anderson, 2005; Johnson, 2005b; Sagor, 2005; Schmuck, 2006). While not fitting the naturalistic observation that typifies most case studies exactly, the study used other ethnographic methods (Borg et al., 1996, p. 545; Crowl, 1996, p. 324). Largely word-based, the data included some pictorial and numerical data. Primary sources included survey responses, words and phrases from notes submitted electronically, interview transcripts, handwritten field notes from observations, and materials from events. Comments filed in response to posted materials and drafts of the report and those sent privately were considered, also. Analyses included statistical analysis of quantitative data and development of member-checked thick descriptions generated from constructs, themes, and patterns emerging from coded qualitative data. Researcher Role The researcher role was acknowledged in planning, implementing, and reporting on the study (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p.p. 29-48). Steps were taken to offset methodological biases. Using a chart appearing in Borg et al. (1996, p. 30), personal convictions of the researcher were assessed to determine how biases might affect the research process and outcomes. The comparison indicated the education profession was accepting of both forums, and suggested the orientation of the researcher aligned with qualitative more so than quantitative inquiry. The insider nature of the researcher complimented the intent of the investigation: i.e., to contribute to the “knowledge base, improved/critiqued practice, professional/organizational transformation” (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 31). As expected, the researcher served the roles of planner, leader, catalyzer, facilitator, teacher, designer, listener, observer, synthesizer, and reporter (SFCEL, 2001). Consistent with fieldwork practices, the researcher spent time 69
“…observing and interacting with members of the group” (Crowl, 1996, p. 216). Tempering the researcher's influence on the study were “inquiry/study groups, teams" (Herr & Anderson, 2005, p. 31). The researcher developed field notes and memos containing data gathered through interviews and observations, participated in analysis, and embraced efforts to advance reliability and validity by carefully following techniques endorsed in the literature. Sampling To begin, a specific sampling technique was used to qualify individuals as "practitioner-participants" (Stringer, 2004, p. 5). Participation was developed through "purposive" sampling (Cresswell, 2002, as cited in Stringer 2004, p. 50). Targeted for inclusion were volunteers from the nine groups that governed and operated the consortium: Scheduling (.23 N); international, PSEO, and credit transfer projects (.23 N); process/operations (.18 N); board/policy (.16 N); technology projects (.11 N); Online College in the High School/OCHS (.11 N); support center (.11 N); Minnesota Online/Academic Innovations staff (.07 N); and, marketing, (.07 N). Using an "expert evaluation" technique explained in Gall et al. (1996, pp. 709-711), a panel comprised of consortium administration met to evaluate and ensure prospective participants included member colleges and other participating agencies, departments, and key positions. A force field analysis guided the panel toward reaching consensus (Schmuck, 2006, pp. 1011). To avert unintended exclusion, the expert panel requested the researcher to extend invitations to any other staff expressing interest, also. In final form, the list of prospective participants included 111 individuals that represented the stakeholding agencies, departments, job types, and consortium groups. (See Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.) 70
Purposive Sample by Employing Agency (N = 111)
30
20
10
0 ATC
MSCTC
NTC
NCTC
Support Center
State System
Partners
Purposive Sample by Department (N = 111) 40
30
20
10
0
Academic Affairs
Administration
Technology Service
Outreach and Support
Fig.1. Prospective purposive sample as comprised by employing agency and department. Composition by agency: Alexandria Technical College (ATC), .14 N; Minnesota State Community and Technical College (MSCTC), .33 N; Northwest Technical College (NTC), .12 N; Northland Community and Technical College (NCTC), .15 N; support center, .11 N; Minnesota State Colleges and Universities offices in the state system, .07 N; K-12, tech prep, and university partners, .08 N. Composition by department: Marketing/student services, .37 N; academics, .29 N; administration, .26 N; technology, .08 N.
71
Purposive Sample by Job (N = 111)
30 20 10 0 Faculty
Dean/Director Service/Support Staff
Executives
Tech Staff
Purposive Sample by Memberships (N = 111) 40
30
20
10
0
Board/ Policy
Process/ Scheduling Team Marketing Project Operations
OCHS Special State Offices Project Technology/ Initiative Support Center Projects
Fig.2. Prospective purposive sample as comprised by job type and groups. Composition by job type: Dean/director, .32 N; support/outreach, .31 N; faculty, .18 N; executives, .12 N; technical, .08 N. Composition by members of governing and operating groups: Scheduling, .23 N; international, PSEO, and credit transfer projects, .23 N; process/operations, .18 N; board/policy, .16 N; technology projects, .11 N; Online College in the High School/OCHS, .11 N; support center, .11 N; state office staff, .07 N; and marketing, .07 N.
72
Phase I Instrumentation, Data Collection, and Analysis Data collected in Phase I included field notes and information voluntarily submitted from participants in a survey administered online. In this phase, founding documents, meeting notes, other explanatory documents, and the consortium website were reviewed and annotated to a checklist form (Johnson, 2005b, pp. 64-78) that incorporated the six elements that typically comprising a virtual community of practice – domain, people, practice, capabilities, spaces and places, and representations (Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003, p. 35). An online survey tested by Hildreth (2000, pp. 270-276) and a licensed online survey software (i.e., Zoomerang®, n.d.) were used to query the prospective purposive sample about collaboration and communication patterns. The survey instrument contained 40 multiple-choice and seven short-answer questions. (Hildreth, 2000). While mentioned in Kimble et al. (1998a, 1998b), the survey was from a dissertation report filed with the University of York (Hildreth, 2000). In the Hildreth study (2000), the online survey collected data from 1500 employees in a business with locations worldwide. Documentation Review When reviewing the documentation, the researcher identified information found in the documentation that related to the six elements of a community of practice (SaintOnge & Wallace, 2003, p. 35). The checklist form annotating the relationship between the elements appearing in the consortium documentation was subjected to an independently performed inductive analysis (Johnson, 2005a, pp. 83-85) and a review by a panel of experts (Gall et al., 1996, pp. 709-71). The two-fold analysis concluded the information recorded on the form encompassed pertinent consortium documentation, the 73
annotated details were categorized appropriately, and the samples shown aligned with the consortium experienced by the panel. Online Survey of Collaboration and Communication Patterns Prospects received an email explaining the research, foreshadowing the problem, and inviting their voluntary participation. Included in the note was a link to the online survey (Hildreth, 2000). Volunteers submitted responses to an Internet site where data amassed in a CSV file (i.e., comma separated variable format). Analysis of the quantitative data gathered in the survey involved several steps. First, quantitative data were analyzed using the 5 metrics reported in Kimble et al. (1998a, 1998b): (a) regular contact, (b) shared projects, (c) problem solved by talking, (d) learned from discussions, and (e) swapped anecdotes or experiences. The data filters were applied through a method recommended by Hildreth (2000, pp. 116-117) to reveal the presence of basic, extended, distributed, and integrated communities. Next, descriptive statistics (i.e., mean, median, and mode) were produced from data gathered by forcedchoice questions using quantitative analysis software (Minitab®, n.d.), and confidence levels were tested. Statistics failing to meet 95% confidence levels were excluded from consideration. Analysis of the qualitative data gathered through the survey involved a series of steps that were recommended for case studies. In the series data (i.e., descriptive information) was translated to form “thick descriptions". Using a qualitative analysis software (QDA Miner®, n.d.), word-based data gathered in open-ended survey questions (18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, and 47) were coded to reveal prevailing themes. The themes were member-checked by the expert panel comprised of consortium administrators. The 74
descriptions associated with the themes were merged to comprise a “construct” (i.e., “concept that is inferred from observed data and that can be used to explain the phenomena”, Borg et al., 1996, p. 549). In turn the constructs were grouped to identify themes (i.e., “…salient, characteristic features of a case”) and patterns (i.e., “…explanations for the phenomena that were studied”, Borg et al., 1996. pp. 549-550). Then, the initial conclusions were triangulated using data gathered in a review of the meeting notes from each group and input from a panel of experts. Phase II Instrumentation, Data Collection, and Analysis In Phase II data were collected through semi-structured interviews conducted with individual volunteers from the practitioner-participants encompassed in the prospective purposive sample. In two optional preparatory activities, prospective participants were introduced to eleven core ideas drawn from the review of the literature. The first of these opportunities was an orientation. The second opportunity provided open access to materials posted online. The semi-structured interviews were designed using tested questions (Hildreth, 2000) and formats recommended by several authorities (Borg et al., pp. 235-237; Johnson, 2005a, pp. 70-72; Schmuck, 2006, pp. 47-48; Stringer, 2004, pp. 64-74). To invite their participation in the semi-structured interviews, prospects were sent a second e-mail offering the opportunity to participate in a short personal interview that would occur by phone. Appointments set and confirmed by email were completed over a 45-day period. Throughout interviewing, in the data collected, and in the transcript, numbers rather than names identified interviewees (e.g., #01, #02, #03.).Word-based data were
75
collected in handwritten filed notes from which interview transcripts were developed. Each participant reviewed, edited, and approved her or his transcript. Using qualitative analysis software (QDA Miner®), codes representing the six infrastructure elements (i.e., domain, community of people, practice, capabilities, spaces/places, representations in Saint-Onge &Wallace, 2003, p. 35) and the supporting infrastructure (i.e., engagement, imagination, and alignment facilities in Wenger, 2003, pp. 237-239) were applied to word-based data contained in the approved electronic files. Next, the coding was rechecked to affirm the logic used therein was applied consistently. To provide a sense of volume and distribution, counts of responses coded to each elemental category were completed and summarized in a table. Then the coded comments were grouped into subset themes using the five-affinity classification model (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1997) that were rechecked to affirm the application of the thematic decision logic also was applied consistently. Those invited to engage in rechecking included a third party facilitator, practitioner-participants involved in the interviews, and visitors to the website that presented the research plan and the developing information. After changes were made based on the input received, the drafts of the thick descriptions were reposted and thereafter served as initial findings that would be refined in activities upcoming. Phase III Instrumentation, Data Collection, and Analysis In Phase III data were collected through firsthand observations and from comments submitted online. Data collection occurred in the context of an open meeting described in several sources (Owen 1987, 1991, 1995). In this third phase volunteers from the purposive sample of practitioners were involved in two events. The events 76
included a prototyping session and an open meeting conducted in real-time via interactive television and asynchronously using web technologies. To begin, a design team loosely translated preliminary findings into a prototype for an improved collaboration infrastructure using contextual design (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998) and STP procedures (Schmuck, 2006). The contextual design procedure (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998) considered issues of flow, sequence, artifact, culture, and physicality. The STP procedure (Schmuck, 2006, pp. 11-12) involved clarifying the situation, identifying the target, and creating a path, plan, procedure, project, and proposal. The prototype of the improved collaboration infrastructure developed from the preliminary findings took the form of an online hub or “Member Network”. The model intended to promote communication, to improve social networking, and to serve as a tangible form that practitioners could reference as they moved the consortium practice from the “mind’s eye” to everyday practice. The prototype was presented in open meetings. Prospective participants received an email inviting their participation at one of two opening meetings. Using Harrison Owen’s Open Space Technology (Owen 1987, 1991, 1995), an external certified facilitator directed an event at which practitioners assessed the relevance of the model to improving collaboration. During the session, the researcher took field notes based on firsthand observations. A second opportunity to review and comment on the prototype was provided online. In the session, the prototype was presented using an Internet-compatible software (eFolio®, n.d.). After reviewing the prototype, participants submitted comments about the prototype displayed online to a secured website. In both instances, numbers associated the data with unnamed participants (e.g., #01, #02, #03). 77
The word-based data were synthesized, coded, reported as themes, and validated by practitioner-participants and observers. Both the external facilitator and participants from the sessions reviewed the document for accuracy, suggested edits, and approved the final copy. With aid of qualitative analysis software (QDA Miner®), the word-based data collected in the open meeting and comments submitted online were grouped by theme. Following the first sorting, the facilitator rechecked the groupings. Afterward, the numbers of participant, comments made in each area, and associated agency, department, and job type were documented in a table. Quality Controls Initial instrumentation and ongoing assurances contributed to achieving reliability and validity criterion pertaining to qualitative inquiry. The research plan was patterned after a model that involved three reconnaissance periods whereby practitioners reflected upon their lived experiences (Elliot, 1991) and was informed by three studies of collaboration (Hildreth, 2000, Fulmer, 2002; Johnson, 2005b). Of the consulted sources, those involving the researcher as an insider and those focused on the extension of knowledge, improvement of practice, and organizational change were most influential on planning techniques. Numerous sources attest to the appropriateness of the collection and analyses methods and their fit to qualitative inquiry, ethnography and action research (Anderson, Herr & Nihlen, 2007; Borg et al., 1996; Coglan & Brannick, 2005; Cresswell, 2002, as cited in Stringer, 2004; Crowl, 1996; Herr & Anderson, 2005; Heron, 1996; Johnson, 2005b; Saavedra, 1994, 1996; Sagor, 2005; Schmuck, 2006; Stringer, 2004). Data collection activities were modeled after techniques recommended by expert sources. The documentation review involved strategies and tools (checklist) endorsed by 78
two sources (Johnson, 2005a; Johnson, 2005b) and integrated a schema (six elements of communities of practice) articulated another (Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003). The online survey and administration procedures were endorsed by a renowned expert on sociotechnical knowledge management (Kimble et al., 1998a, 1998b) and field-tested in a study that investigated a similar topic (Hildreth, 2000).The foreshadowing techniques and semi-structured interviews were structured using formats and questions endorsed by pertinent authorities (Borg et al., pp. 235-237; Johnson, 2005a, pp. 70-72; Hildreth, 2000; Schmuck, 2006, pp. 47-48; Stringer, 2004, pp. 64-74). The prototyping session involved two widely acknowledged techniques: contextual design procedure that considered issues of flow, sequence, artifact, culture, and physicality (Beyer & Holtzblatt, 1998) and the STP procedure that involved clarifying the situation, identifying the target, and creating a path, plan, procedure, project, and proposal (Schmuck, 2006). The culminating event involved another widely acknowledged technique: Harrison Owen’s Open Space Technology (Owen 1987, 1991, 1995). Data analyses included those techniques recommended by experts and involved data analysis software. The documentation review was subjected to an inductive analysis (Johnson, 2005a, pp. 83-85) and a review by a panel of experts (Gall et al., 1996, pp. 70971). Determining the level of communities present in the consortium involved an established schema (i.e., 5 metrics by Kimble et al., 1998a, 1998b) and filtering technique (Hildreth, 2000, pp. 116-117). Quantitative data gathered in the survey were processed into descriptive statistics with quantitative analysis software (Minitab®, n.d.); however, only those determined to be at or above the 95% confidence level through an analysis of variance were considered in the findings. Following advice from Borg et al. (1996), 79
qualitative data gathered in open-ended survey questions and field notes from interviews and the open meetings were coded to generate prevailing themes that were memberchecked. Code structures were generated using the six elements of communities of practice (Saint Onge & Wallace, 2003) and the subsystems of the collaboration infrastructure that were acknowledged in the literature (Wenger, 2002). The built-in coding mechanisms in the qualitative analysis software employed in the study (QDA Miner®, n.d.) contributed to consistency, also. The study promoted credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability in several ways. Credibility was promoted by the study integrating prolonged engagement, persistent observation, triangulation, participant debriefing, diverse case analysis, referential adequacy, and member checks (Stringer, 2004, pp. 57-59). To promote dependability, the developing report and final copy provided information about the processes and procedures used so that participants and others could conduct ongoing “inquiry audit” (Stringer, 2004, p. 59). For the purpose of confirmability, the raw data and other evidence were documented into forms that were accessible to practitionerparticipants and other interested parties (Stringer, 2004, pp. 59-60). Transferability was promoted in the provision of “sufficiently detailed reports of the context and participants to enable others to assess the likely applicability” (Stringer, 2004, p. 59). Validity was promoted and monitored using quality criteria developed for action research (Anderson and Herr and Nihlen, 2007, pp. 35-47). A commitment to democratic validity was demonstrated by involving stakeholders (i.e., practitioners) to the problem (i.e., collaboration) as participants, and was furthered by involving experts (i.e., consortium administration) in assuring the purposive sample represented stakeholder 80
segments (i.e., agencies, departments, jobs, groups).Outcome validity was enhanced by involving stakeholders (practitioners) in determining what constituted beneficial improvements from their collective perspective, and by not excluding others expressing interest from participating. Also enhancing outcome validity was the participation gained from gathering data through technology so practitioners from across the consortium could participate easily and the opportunities to participate that were created from structuring the study so that data pool was not limited to only those individuals who could commit to every event. Process validity was enhanced by using a well-defined but flexible research implementation management plan that outlined the events, goals, participants, tools, data, analysis, and assurances pertaining to each phase of the inquiry. The three-phase design provided opportunities to reexamine the assumptions underlying the problem and to reframe the problem itself over the period of sustained inquiry, and offered opportunities to anonymously introduced the privately contributed ideas of peers to practitionerparticipants. Moreover, the process provided ongoing opportunities to review, assess, and comment on the developing consensus. To demonstrate dialogic validity, the study took the form of a collaborative inquiry that involved "knowers" (i.e., practitioners), involved the triangulation of data generated from several activities and many individuals. Serving the role of "critical friends", consortium experts and a third-party facilitator provided feedback at several key points. Additionally, member checking provided opportunities for participants to review, comment on, or approve interview transcripts, activity reports, and draft copies of the final report. Catalytic validity was supported by the three phase design whereby each 81
stage offered the opportunity to collect and analyze data, to develop preliminary findings that were available for review and comment, and to refocus the study based on the deepened understanding that developed. Moreover, the staged design "reorient(ed), focus(ed), and energize(d) participants toward knowing reality in order to transform it" (Anderson et al., 2007, p. 42). While not intended for generalization, the study provided for transcontextual credibility by focusing on telling the story the data implies is the ultimate goal. As explained by a foremost authority on hermeneutics, "…our first, last, and constant task is never to making fore-having…fore-sight …and fore-conceptions…not to be presented to us by fanciful or popular conceptions, but rather to make the scientific theme secure by working out these fore-structures in term of things themselves” (Heidegger, 1927 trans. 1962, cited in Bernstein, 1983, p.136). Said another, “The validity of a vision, as beauty itself, lies in the eyes of the beholder. All I can do is share the vision, tell the story” (Owens, 1991, p.99). Thus, the report was developed as a "…narrative that describes and discusses whatever phenomena the researcher has studied” (Crowl, 1996, p. 196). Included also are “sufficiently detailed reports of the context and participants” (Stringer, 2004, p. 59) so readers might assess applicability for themselves.
82
CHAPTER 4. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The chapter reviews the research questions, summarizes participation, and presents the data and analysis. Framework After receiving the necessary approvals, data were collected and analyzed as planned. Foreshadowed by a need for making collaboration more easily accomplished, the plan and the implementation of activities incorporated change, reflection, participation, inclusion, sharing, understanding, repetition, practices, and community (Stringer, 2004, p.5). To protect participant confidentiality, identifying information (i.e., name, email, coding identification, employer, job, memberships) was archived in parcels that would be maintained for the required three-year period and then destroyed. Research Questions Collection and analyses responded to the research questions. Of foremost concern was: To what extent do practitioner-participants from groups governing and operating the consortium perceive their involvement in assessing and planning improvements to the existing consortium collaboration infrastructure would improve the capability of their groups to create and continuously improve shared practice? Also attended to were seven supporting questions: 1. As assessed by practitioner-participants from groups governing and operating the consortium, to what extent do the board, process team, project teams, and communities of practice existing in the inter-institutional consortium identify with the virtual teams and communities of practice described in the literature? 83
2. As assessed by practitioner-participants from groups governing and operating the consortium, how well do the features of the current collaboration infrastructure compare with those features recommended in research? 3. What changes to the collaboration infrastructure do practitioner-participants from groups governing and operating the consortium recommend? 4. To what extent do practitioner-participants from groups governing and operating the consortium perceive that participating in the review, assessment, and redesign of the collaboration infrastructure has affected member appreciation for participation, engagement, and reification? 5. As judged by practitioner-participants from groups governing and operating the consortium, what effects would the recommended infrastructure improvements have upon further developing shared practice? 6. As judged by practitioner-participants from groups governing and operating the consortium, what effects would their involvement in deploying and using the improved collaboration infrastructure have upon further developing shared practice? 7. What patterns in the data lead to the generation of hypotheses that could be investigated in future studies? Participation Volunteers from the prospective purposive sample of practitioners (111 n) participated. (Refer to Fig. 3, 4 and 5.) In Phase I, .324 N (36 n) responded an online survey that collected data on collaboration and communication patterns. In Phase II, .423 N (47 n) participated in semi-structured interviews. In phase III, .117 N (13 n) participated in the open meetings. Quantitative Data and Findings The quantitative data collected in Phase I (document review, online survey), Phase II (interviews), and Phase III (open meetings) and findings are presented in the context of the research question topics.
84
Fig. 3. Prospective purposive sample (111 n) and actual participation in survey (.324 N) compared by agency, department, job type and governing/operating group.
85
Fig. 4. Prospective purposive sample (111 n) and actual participation in interviews (.423 N) compared by agency, department, job type and governing/operating group. 86
Fig. 5. Prospective purposive sample (111 n) and actual participation at the open meeting (.117 N) compared by agency, department, job type and governing/operating group.
87
Alignment with a Virtual Team and a Virtual Community of Practice Located in the data set was insight on the characteristics the consortium held in common with a virtual team and a virtual community of practice. Comparison with a Virtual Team The superstructure of the consortium was documented on a map of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. (See Fig. 6.) Findings: Indications of a complex virtual team. 1. The consortium spanned four different and independently operated organizations and one centralized consortium/support center office. 2. The superstructure spanned eight different sites. 3. Individuals working at sites located at the far ends were separated by 180 miles east to west and by 300 miles north to south. 4. Member of groups governing and operating the consortium were separated from east to west by 3 hours of travel time and from north to south by 5 hours of travel time. Comparison with a Virtual Community of Practice Datasets were compared to behaviors indicative of a basic, extended, distributed, and integrated community. Findings: Indications of a virtual community of practice. (See Table 3.) 1. A third did not report community-oriented behavior sufficient for stage 1. 2. A majority (.667 N) reported community-oriented behavior. 3. Most prevalent of the community-oriented behaviors were those aligned with the basic stage 1 (.334 N) and integrated stage 4 (.194 N) communities. 88
Fig.6. Member organizations: Included were four 2-year colleges and their eight campuses (i.e., Minnesota State Community and Technical College [MSCTC] with campuses at Detroit Lakes, Fergus Falls, Moorhead, and Wadena; Northland Community and Technical College [NCTC] with campuses at East Grand Forks and Thief River Falls; Northwest Technical College [NTC] with campuses at Bemidji and Red Lake; and, the newest member college, Alexandria Technical College [ATC] with its campus in Alexandria) and a consortium office/support center located in Perham. Source: Modified from the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (n.d.) map appearing at www.mnscu.edu that was retrieved in August 2006. 89
Table 3 Levels of Communities of Practice Shown by Survey Respondents
Filters: Levels/Stages, Criteria
Portion of 36 n
No community stage evident
.334 N
Basic level – Stage 1
.334 N
Regular contact with colleague(s) at other sites (26n) Shared project (25n) Swap anecdotes (24n) Learn from discussion (24n) Extended level – Stage 2
.056 N
All behaviors listed for Stage 1 (see above) Problem solving – talk to local colleagues (20n) Distributed – Stage 3
.083 N
All behaviors listed for Stage 1 and Stage 2 (see above) Problem solving – talk to distant colleagues (18n) .194 N
Integrated/Final – Stage 4 All behaviors listed for Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 (see above) Shared project with others in other sites (17n) Shared project with others at same and other sites (17n) Swapped anecdotes with others at other sites (17n) Swapped anecdotes with others in same and other sites (16n) Learned from others in other locations (16n) Learn from others in same and other sites (15n)
Source: Developed on the basis of Hildreth, 2000, p. 117.
90
4. Community of practice stage by agency: (See Fig. 7.) a.
ATC (2 n): All (1 N) matched a basic stage 1 community. Half (.5 N) matched an integrated stage 4 community behaviors.
b. NCTC (6 n): All (1 N) matched a basic stage 1 community. A majority (.83 N) matched an extended stage 2 community. A distributed stage 3 community was evident among a smaller majority (.67 N). Half (.5 N) aligned with an integrated stage 4 community. c. NTC (5 n): A majority (.8 N) matched a distributed stage 3 community. Half (.5 N) aligned with an integrated stage 4 community. d. MSCTC (13 n): A minority reported community-oriented behavior. Among .46 N behaviors of extended stage 2 communities was evident. A smaller minority (.23 N) matched an integrated stage 4 community. e. Support center (6 n): Half (.5 N) matched an extended stage 2 community. A third (.33 N) matched an integrated stage 4 community. f. State system office (2 n): Half (.5 N) matched an extended stage 2 community. g. Partner agencies (2 n): All (1 N) matched a basic (stage 1). Half (.5 N) matched an integrated stage 4 community. 5. Community of practice stage by department: (See Fig. 8.) a. Technology (4 n): A majority (.75 N) matched a distributed stage 3 community. A minority (.25 N) matched an integrated stage 4 community.
91
b. Academic affairs (10 n): The largest majority (.7 N) matched an extended stage 2 community. The smallest majority (.6 N) matched a distributed stage 3 community. Half (.5 N) matched an integrated stage 4 community. c. Services/marketing (18 n): The largest majority matched a basic stage 1 community (.667 N basic stage 1). A smaller majority (.556 N) matched an extended stage 2 community. The largest minority (.444 N) matched a distributed stage 3 community and the smallest (.222 N) matched an integrated stage 4 community. a. Administrative departments (4 n): Half (.5N) matched place-based (basic stage 1, extended stage 2), distributed stage 3 and integrated stage 4 communities. 6. Community of practice stage by job type: (See Fig. 9.) a. Executive administrative staff (1 n): The one respondent (1 n) reported behavior aligned with an integrated stage 4 community. b. Service/marketing staff (17 n): To differing extents, the majority matched a basic stage 1 (.882 N), extended stage 2 (.765 N) or a distributed stage 3 (.647 N) community. A minority (.353 N) matched an integrated stage 4 community. c. Technical staff (4 n): A majority (.75 N) matched a distributed stage 3 community. d. Dean/director (4 n): Half (.5 N) matched an integrated stage 4 community.
92
Overview of Behaviors Indicative of Community Stage For ATC (2 n) 1
Portion of Respondents (1 N)
0.9 0.8
1.0
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4
.5
.5
Extended
Distributed
.5
0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Basic
Integrated
Community Stage
Overview of Behaviors Indicative of Community Stage For NCTC (6 n)
Overview of Behaviors Indicative of Community Stage For NTC (5 n)
1
Portion of Respondents (1 N)
Portion of Respondents (1 N)
1 0.9
1.0
0.8
.83
0.7 0.6
.67
0.5
.5
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6
.8
.8
.5
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
Basic
Extended
Distributed
Integrated
Basic
Extended
Community Stage
1 0.9
Portion of Respondents (1 N)
Portion of Respondents (1 N)
1
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
.5
.5
0.3
.33
0.2
.33
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4
0.1 0
Distributed
Basic
Integrated
Overview of Behaviors Indicative of Community Stage For Others/Partners (2 n)
1 0.9 0.7
1.0
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3
.5
.5
.5
0.2 0.1 0 Basic
Extended
0 Extended
Community Stage
Community Stage
0.8
.5
0.2
0 Extended
.5
0.3
0.1 Basic
Integrated
Overview of Behaviors Indicative of Community Stage For State System Office (2 n)
0.9
0.4
Distributed
Community Stage
Overview of Behaviors Indicative of Community Stage For Support Center (6 n)
Portion of Respondents (1 N)
.8
0.5
Distributed
Integrated
Community Stage
Fig.7. Community maturity by agency.
93
Distributed
0 Integrated
Overview of Behaviors Indicative of Community Stage For Academic Affairs Department (10 n)
Overview of Behaviors Indicative of Community Stage For Student Services/Marketing Departments (18 n) 1
Portion of Respondents (1 N)
Portion of Respondents (1 N)
1 0.9 0.8 0.7
.7
0.6 0.5
.7
0.4
.6
0.3
.5
0.2
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
0.1 0 Distributed
.444 .222
Basic
Integrated
De
0.2
0 Extended
.556
0.3
0.1 Basic
.667
0.4
Extended
Distributed
Integrated
Community Stage
Community Stage
Overview of Behaviors Indicative of Community Stage For Technology Department (4 n)
Overview of Behaviors Indicative of Community Stage For Administrative Departments (4 n)
1
Portion of Respondents (1 N)
Portion of Respondents (1 N)
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6
.75
.75
.75
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2
.25
0.1 0 Basic
Extended
Distributed
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2
.5
.5
Extended
Distributed
Community Stage
Community Stage
Fig.8. Community maturity by department.
94
.5
0.1 0 Basic
Integrated
.5
Integrated
Overview of Behaviors Indicative of Community Stage For Dean/Director Jobs (4 n)
Overview of Behaviors Indicative of Community Stage For Faculty Jobs (10 n) 1
Portion of Respondents (1 N)
Portion of Respondents (1 N)
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3
.5
.5
.5
.5
0.2
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0
Basic
Extended
Distributed
Integrated
.3
Basic
Community Stage
1 0.9
Portion of Respondents (1 N)
Portion of Respondents (1 N)
1
0.8
0.6
.765 .647
0.5
Extended
Distributed
0.4 0.3
.353
0.2
0.7 0.6
.75
.75
0.4 0.3 0.2
Basic
Distributed
0 Extended
Integrated
Community Stage
Community Stage
Overview of Behaviors Indicative of Community Stage For Executive Jobs (1 n)
Portion of Respondents (1 N)
1 0.9
.75
0.5
0
0 Extended
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Basic
Extended
Integrated
0.8
0.1
0.1 Basic
.2
Overview of Behaviors Indicative of Community Stage For Technical Jobs (4 n)
0.9
.882
.3
Community Stage
Overview of Behaviors Indicative of Community Stage For Services/Marketing Jobs (17 n)
0.7
.3
Distributed
Integrated
Community Stage
Fig.9. Community maturity by job type. 95
Distributed
Integrated
e.
Faculty (10 n): A minority reported community-oriented behavior. Of those, .3 N matched basic stage 1, extended stage 2 and distributed stage 3 communities. A smaller minority (.2 N) matched an integrated stage 4 community.
Foundational Elements of a Virtual Community Counts of comments pertaining to each element requisite to a community of practice (i.e., domain, community, practice, representations/artifacts, spaces/places, and capabilities) were summarized. Findings: Evidence of elements. 1.
Evidence of elements: (See Fig. 10.) a. The majority addressed four elements: Domain (.936 N), community (.872 N), capabilities (.872 N), and practice (.702 N). b. With the exception of representations/artifacts, which was not addressed by partner agencies, all elements were addressed by each agency, each department and each job type.
2. Evidence of interests: (See Fig. 10.) a. A majority directed attention toward the elements of domain, community, capabilities and practice: i. Domain: The 270 comments by 44n were generated largely from (a) three agencies (ATC, MSCTC and the support center), (b) three departments (student service/marketing, academics and administration) and (c) three job types (dean/director, executive and staff). 96
Fig.10. Portion of participants (47 n) and portion of comments (725 n) pertaining to each community element.
97
ii. Capabilities: The 159 comments by 41n were generated largely from (a) three agencies (ATC, MSCTC and support center), (b) two departments (academics and student service/marketing) and (c) two job types (dean/director and staff). iii. Community: The 140 comments by 41 n were generated largely from three agencies (ATC, MSCTC and the support center), (b) three departments (academics, administration and student service/marketing) and (c) two job types (dean/director and staff). iv. Practice: The 95 comments by 33 n were generated largely from (a) two agencies (MSCTC and the support center), (b) one department (student service/marketing) and (c) two job types (dean/director and staff). b. A minority directed interest toward spaces/places (.404 N) and representations/artifacts (.277 N). i. Representations/artifacts: The 20 comments by 13n were generated largely from (a) two agencies (ATC and MSCTC), (b) one department (student service/marketing) and (c) two job types (dean/director and staff). ii. Spaces/places: The 41 comments by 19n were generated largely from (a) two agencies (ATC, MSCTC), (b) two departments (academics and student service/marketing) and (c) three job types (dean/director, faculty and staff). 98
2. Interests by agency: (See Fig. 11.) a. ATC: Most attention was directed toward domain (.33N) and capabilities (.21 N), and the least was directed toward spaces/places (.08 N) and representations/artifacts (.05 N). b. MSCTC: Most attention was directed toward domain (.36 N) and capabilities (.25 N), and the least was directed toward spaces/places (.05 N) and representations/artifacts (.02 N). c. NCTC: Most attention was directed toward domain (.23 N), capabilities (.23 N) and community (.20 N), and the least was directed toward spaces/places (.05 N) and representations/artifacts (.02 N). d. NTC: Most attention was directed toward domain (.34 N) and capabilities (.21 N), and the least was directed toward spaces/places (.08 N) and representations/artifacts (.03 N). e. Support center: Most attention was directed toward domain (.36 N), capabilities (.23 N) and community (.20 N), and the least was directed toward spaces/places (.08 N) and representations/artifacts (.03 N). f. Partner agencies: Most attention was directed toward domain (.54 N) and community (.20 N), and the least was directed toward spaces/places and representations/artifacts (.00 N). g. State office: Most attention was directed toward domain (.45 N) and community (.45 N), and the least was directed toward representations/artifacts (.06 N) and spaces/places (.04 N).
99
Community
Domain 0.3
0.3 0.2
0.2 .293
.318 0.1
0.1
.114 0 ATC MSCTC NCTC
.122
.068
.068
.195
.171
.182
.159
.073
.091 0 ATC
NTC Support Partner State center
MSCTC NCTC
Practice
.098
Support Partner center
State
Representations/Artifacts
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2 .333 0.1
NTC
.049
.308
.212
.182 .121
0 ATC
.154
.09 .03
MSCTC NCTC
.231
0.1
NTC
.077
.03
0 ATC
Support Partner State center
MSCTC NCTC
.154
.077
0
NTC
Support Partner State center
Capabilites
Spaces/Places 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
.366
.263 .263 0.1
0.1
.158 .105
.053 0 ATC
MSCTC NCTC
.171
.105
NTC
.195 .123 .073
.053
0 ATC
Support Partner State center
Fig.11. Community element by agency.
100
MSCTC NCTC
NTC
.024 Support Partner center
.049 State
1. Interests by department: (See Fig. 12.) a. Academic affairs: Most attention was directed toward domain (.36 N) and capabilities (.25 N), and the least was directed toward spaces/places (.07 N) and representations/artifacts (.02 N). b. Administration: Most attention was directed toward domain (.43 N), capabilities (.20 N) and community (.20 N), and the least was directed toward spaces/places (.04 N) and representations/artifacts (.01 N). c. Services/marketing: Most attention was directed toward domain (.37 N), capabilities (.21 N) and community (.20 N), and the least was directed toward spaces/places (.05 N) and representations/artifacts (.03 N). d. Technical: Most attention was directed toward capabilities (.25 N), community (.22 N) and domain (.20 N), and the least was directed toward spaces/places (.14 N) and position in practice (.09 N). 2. Interests by job type: (See Fig. 13.) a. Dean/Director: Most attention was directed toward domain (.39 N), capabilities (.22 N), and community (.20 N), and the least was directed toward spaces/places (.06 N) and (b) representations/artifacts (.04 N). b. Executive: Most attention was directed toward domain (.45 N) and capabilities (.21 N), and the least was directed toward spaces/places (.03 N) and representations/artifacts (.02 N).
101
Domain
Community
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3 .477
0.2 0.1
.498 0.2
.250
.250 0.1
.023 Academic
Admin
Student
Technical
.244
.049
Academic
Practice 0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
Student
0.3
.545
0.2
Technical
.539
0.2 .212
.212
0.1
Academic
Admin
Student
.154
.231
.030
.077
Technical
Academic
Admin
Student
Technical
Capabilities
Spaces/Places 0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3 0.2
Admin
Representations/Artifacts
0.6
0.1
.220
0.3 .421
0.1
Academic
.463
0.2
.316
.293
Admin
0.1
.105
.158 Student
Technical
Academic
Fig. 12. Community element by department.
102
.195
Admin
.049 Student
Technical
Domain
Community
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2 0.1
0.2
.273
0 Dean/Dir
.25
.25
.205
0.1
.023 Executive
Faculty
Staff
.317 .268
0 Dean/Dir
Technical
Practice
.146 .049
Executive
Faculty
Staff
Technical
Representations/Artifacts
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
.22
0.3
.485
0.2
0.2
.385 .231
0.1
.182
0 Dean/Dir
.152
0.1
.152
.077
.03 Executive
Faculty
Staff
0 Dean/Dir
Technical
Executive
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
.316 .263
.211
Executive
0.1
.105
.105 0 Dean/Dir
Faculty
Faculty
Staff
Technical
Capabilites
Spaces/Places
0.2
.154
.154
Staff
.342 .268
0 Dean/Dir
Technical
Fig. 13. Community element by job type.
103
.171
.171 .049
Executive
Faculty
Staff
Technical
c. Faculty: Most attention was directed toward domain (.45 N) and capabilities (.21 N), and the least was directed toward spaces/places (.07 N) and representations/artifacts (.02 N). d. Staff: Most attention was directed toward domain (.29 N) and capabilities (.24 N), and the least was directed toward spaces/places (.06 N) and representations/artifacts (.02 N). e. Technical: Most attention was directed toward capabilities (.25 N), community (.22 N) and domain (.20 N), and the least was directed toward spaces/places (.14 N) and position in practice (.09 N). 3. Themes related to the element of domain: (See Fig. 14.) a. A majority (.68 N) commented on the consortium mission. b. Nearly half (.489 N) commented on the consortium position in practice. c. A minority commented on membership (.426 N), curriculum strategy (.383 N), enactment of collaboration (.319 N), governance (.277 N), and business strategy (.192 N). 4. Evidence of interest in the themes related to domain: (See Fig. 14.) a. Mission and purpose: Comments (61n) were generated largely from (a) three agencies (ATC, MSCTC and the support center), (b) two departments (academics and student service/marketing) and (c) three job types (dean/director, faculty and staff). b. Consortium position in practice: Comments (65 n) were generated largely from (a) two agencies (MSCTC and the support center), (b) 104
two departments (academics and student service/marketing) and (c) two job types (dean/director and executive). c. Membership: Comments (33 n) were generated largely from (a) three agencies (ATC, MSCTC and NCTC), (b) two departments (administration and student service/marketing) and (c) three job types (dean/director, executive and staff). d. Curriculum strategy: Comments (30 n) were generated largely from (a) three agencies (ATC, MSCTC and NCTC), (b) two departments (academics and administration) and (c) two job types (executive and faculty). e. Collaborating: Comments (15 n) were generated largely from (a) three agencies (ATC, MSCTC and NCTC), (b) three departments (academics, administration and student service/marketing), and (c) two job types (dean/director and executive). f. Governance: Comments (13 n) were generated largely from (a) two agencies (MSCTC and the support center), (b) two departments (academics and student service/marketing) and (c) two job types (dean/director and executive). g. Business strategy: Related comments (9 n) were generated largely from (a) two agencies (ATC and MSCTC), (b) one department (academics) and (c) one job type (executive).
105
Number of Individuals Commenting on the Element Number of Comments Directed to Element
Fig.14. Portion of participants (47 n) and comments (270 n) pertaining to the seven domain themes.
106
5. Domain interests by agency: (See Fig. 15.) a. ATC: Most attention was directed toward business model (.26 N) and mission/purpose (.24 N), and the least was directed toward governance (.00 N). b. MSCTC: Most attention was directed toward mission and purpose (.25 N) and position in practice (.22 N), and the least was directed toward enacting collaboration (.09 N). c. NCTC: Most attention was directed toward mission and purpose (.26 N) and membership (.23 N), and the least was directed toward business model (.00 N). d. NTC: Most attention was directed toward position in practice (.25 N) and business model (.21 N), and the least was directed toward enacting collaboration (.05 N). e. Support center: Most attention was directed toward position in practice (.33 N) and mission/purpose (.22 N), and the least was directed toward business model (.00 N). f. Partner agencies: Most attention was directed toward position in practice (.54 N) and curriculum (.21 N), and the least was directed toward membership (.00 N), enacting collaboration and business model (.00 N). g. State office: Most attention was directed toward position in practice (.27 N) and mission/purpose (.24 N), and least was directed toward governance (.06 N) and curriculum (.05 N). 107
Domain: Participants Commenting On Enactment of Collaboration (N = 15)
Domain: Participants Commenting On Mission & Purposes (N = 32) 0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2 .313
.267
0.1
.156
.125
.156
.133
.125
.094
MSCTC NCTC
NTC
Support Partner center
.2
.133 .067
.031
0 ATC
.2
0.1
0
0
State
ATC
Domain: Participants Commenting On Governance (N = 13)
MSCTC
NCTC
NTC
Support Partner center
State
Domain: Participants Commenting On Membership (N = 20)
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2 .308 .231
0.1 .154
0.1
.154
0
.2 .1
.077
.1 0
0
ATC
MSCTC
NCTC
NTC
Support Partner center
State
ATC
Domain: Participants Commenting On Business Model (N = 9)
MSCTC
NCTC
NTC
Support Partner center
State
Domain: Participants Commenting On Curriculum Strategy (N = 18)
0.3
0.2
.25 .15
.077 0
.2
0.3
0.2
.333 .333
.278 .222
0.1 0
0.1 0
.167
.167
.111
.111
.111
.111 0
.056
0
0
ATC
MSCTC
NCTC
NTC
Support Partner center
State
ATC
Domain: Participants Commenting On Position in the Practice (N = 23) 0.3
0.2 .261
.217
0.1
.13 .087
0 ATC
.13 .13
.043
MSCTC NCTC
NTC
Support Partner center
State
Fig. 15. Domain themes by agency.
108
MSCTC
NCTC
NTC
Support Partner center
State
6. Domain interests by department: (See Fig. 16.) a. Academic affairs: Most attention was directed toward position in practice (.25 N), and the least was directed toward membership (.08 N) and enacting collaboration (.08 N). b. Administration: Most attention was directed toward position in practice (.23 N) and the least attention was directed toward business model (.05 N). c. Student services/marketing: Most attention was directed toward mission and purpose (.30 N), and the least was directed toward curriculum strategy (.06 N). d. Technical: Most attention was directed toward mission and purpose (.70 N), and the least was directed toward enacting collaboration (.00 N), governance (.00 N), business model (0%), curriculum (.00 N) and position in practice (.00 N). 7. Domain interests by job type: a. Dean/Director: Most attention was directed toward position in practice (.30 N), and the least was directed toward business model (.00 N). b. Executive: Most attention was directed toward position in practice (.24 N) and business model (.22 N), and the least was directed toward enacting collaboration (.07 N) and membership (.09 N). c. Faculty: Most attention was directed toward mission and purpose (.33 N), and the least was directed toward enacting collaboration (.04 N).
109
Domain: Participants Commenting On Mission & Purposes (N = 32)
0.7 0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4 0.3
0.3 0.2
.406
.313
0.2
.219
0.1
.063
Academic
Admin
.334
.334
Student
0
0
Technical
Academic
Domain: Participants Commenting On Governance (N = 13)
0.7
.334
0.1
0
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
Admin
Student
Technical
Domain: Participants Commenting On Membership (N = 20)
0.7
0.6
0.2
Domain: Participants Commenting On Enactment of Collaboration (N = 15)
0.7
0.3
.462 0.2
.23
0.1
.308 0.1
0
0 Academic
Admin
Student
.4 .25
.05
0
Technical
Academic
Domain: Participants Commenting On Business Model (N = 9)
0.7
.3
Admin
Student
Technical
Domain: Participants Commenting On Curriculum Strategy (N = 18) 0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4 .667
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
.5 .222
0.1 .111 Adm in
Student
0 Academic
Technical
Domain: Participants Commenting On Position in Practice (N = 23)
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2
.391
0.1 0 Academic
.26
.348 0
Admin
.167
0
0 Academic
.333
0.1
Student
Technical
Fig.16. Domain themes by department.
110
0 Admin
Student
Technical
Domain: Participants Commenting On Mission & Purposes (N = 32)
0.7
Domain: Participants Commenting On Enactment of Collaboration (N = 15)
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
.467
0.1
.25 .188
.219
.281 .063
0 Dean/Dir
Executive
Faculty
Staff
Technical
Dean/Dir
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
.462
0.2
Faculty
Staff
Technical
.4
.308
.25
0.1
0.1
.154
0 Dean/Dir
Executive
Faculty
Staff
.2 .1
0
.077
.05
0 Dean/Dir
Technical
Domain: Participants Commenting On Business Model (N = 9) 0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
Executive
Faculty
Staff
Technical
Domain: Participants Commenting On Curriculum Strategy (N = 18)
0.4
0.4 .667
0.3
0.3
0.2
.444
0.2
.222
0.1 0 Dean/Dir
0.1
.111
0 Executive
Faculty
Staff
Technical
0.5 0.4 0.3 .348 .174
0.1 0 Dean/Dir
.13 Executive
Faculty
.222
.167 0
0 Dean/Dir
0.6
.348
.167
0
Domain: Participants Commenting On Position in Practice (N = 23)
0.7
0.2
Executive
0.3
0.3 0.2
0
Domain: Participants Commenting On Membership (N = 20)
0.7
0.6
.2 .067
0
Domain: Participants Commenting On Governance (N = 13)
0.7
.267
0.1
0 Staff
Technical
Fig.17. Domain themes by job type.
111
Executive
Faculty
Staff
Technical
d. Staff: Most attention was directed toward mission and purpose (.32 N), and the least was directed toward governance (.04 N). e. Technical: Most attention was directed toward mission and purpose (.70 N), and the least was directed toward enacting collaboration (.00 N), governance (.00 N), business model (.00 N), curriculum (.00 N) and position in practice (.00 N). Consortium Collaboration Infrastructure Data pertaining to community engagement and alignment facilities were located. Facilities for Engagement: Mutuality via Joint Tasks Located were data on the frequency regular work involved joint tasks: i.e., sharing projects, swapping anecdotes, and learning from others. Findings: Mutuality and joint tasks. 1. Working with others: A majority (.722 N) was in regular contact with people in similar positions at other sites. 2. Problem solving behaviors: The largest majority consulted others at their same site (.916 N) and at other sites (.778 N); a smaller majority consulted websites (.667 N) and printed media (.583 N). 3. Shared projects: For a majority (.944 N), daily work involved shared projects. (See Fig, 18.) a. Analyses were significant (p = .02) for the group at-large wherein shared project work "sometimes" involved peers at their same site (M = 3.55, SD = .624), peers at their same and other sites (M = 3.13, SD = .793), and peers at other sites (M = 3.03, SD = .836). 112
b. Analyses were significant (p < .05) for service staff (p = .006; (F (2, 41) = 5.86) wherein shared project work "rarely" involved individuals located "at their same and other sites" (M = 2.786, SD = .802). 4. Swapping anecdotes in the course of daily work: The majority (.972 N) swapped anecdotes with peers. (See Fig. 18.) a. Analyses were significant (p = .005) for the group at-large wherein anecdotes "sometimes" were swapped with those "at their same site" (M = 3.44, SD = .716) and "rarely" were swapped with those "at their same and other sites" (M = 2.97, SD = .782) and "at other sites" (M = 2.81, SD = .833). b. Analyses were significant (p < .05) for: One of the six agencies (support center, p = .016, F (2, 15) = 5.53), one of the four departments (services/marketing, p = .006, F (2, 45) = 5.67), and one of the four job types (service staff, p = .008, F (2, 42) = 5.38). i. Aligned with the at-large group, support center staff (6n) "sometimes" swapped anecdotes with colleagues "at their same site" (M = 3.5, SD = .5477) and "rarely" with those "at their own and other sites" (M = 2.5, SD = .8367) and "at other sites" (M = 2.1667, SD = .7528). ii. Similarly, service staff (17n) "sometimes" swapped anecdotes with colleagues "at their same site" (M = 3.533, SD = .133) and "rarely" with those "at their own and other sites" (M = 2.80, SD = .206) and "at other sites" (M = 2.733, SD = .223). 113
iii. Also aligned with the at-large group, services/marketing department staff (16n) "sometimes" swapped anecdotes with colleagues "at their same site" (M = 3.625, SD = .50) and "rarely" with those "at their own and other sites" (M = 2.8125, SD = .8352) and "at other sites" (M = 2.875, SD = .8851). 5. Working with and Learning from Others: Analyses for respondents at-large were not significant (p = .162), nor for any agency, department, or job type. Facilities for Engagement: Mutuality and Interactive Facilities Also located were data on the frequency with which practitioners used varying interactional facilities (communication media) in the course of completing joint tasks. Findings: Interactional facilities 1. Media for interacting with other sites about shared projects: (See Fig, 19.) Analyses were significant (p = .0) for the group at-large. a. Email (M = 3.91, SD = .296) and telephone (M = 3.55, SD = .296) were used "sometimes". b. Included in the "rarely" used mediums were: online meetings (M = 2.00, SD = .743), fax (M = 2.03, SD = .861), in-person meetings (M = 2.72, SD = .6345), conferencing by phone (M = 2.78, SD = .906), and video (M = 2.94, SD = .840). c. Included in mediums "never" used were: live chat (M = 1.48, SD = .575), ask a question (M = 1.87, SD = .776), and paper (M = 1.90, SD = .885).
114
Frequency of Shared Project Work
Frequency of Swapping Anecdotes Fig. 18. Frequency work involved joint tasks that contributed to fostering mutuality. 115
Fig.19. Frequency various media were used for communicating about shared projects. 116
d. Analyses were significant for: Five agencies (ATC, p = .00, F (10, 18) = 6.88; NTC, p = .00, F (10, 31) = 7.63; state, p = .00; MSCTC, p = .00, F (10, 112) = 15.68; NCTC, p = .005, F (10, 52) = 8.00; support center, p = .00, F (10, 40) = 6.66); four departments (academics, p = .00, F (10, 84) = 17.64; administration, p = .00, F (10, 25) = 5.87; services/marketing, p = .00, F (10, 145) = 15.77; technology, p = .00, F (10, 31) = 5.40); and four job types (faculty, p = .00, F (10, 85) = 19.10; dean/director, p = .00, F (10, 24) = 7.35; service, p = .00, F (10, 134) = 14.07; and technical, p = .00, F (10, 31) = 5.40). i. In contrast to the group at-large, in seven subgroups email was used "frequently" (three agencies: ATC, M = 4, SD = .0, and NTC, M = 4. SD = .0, and support center, M = 4, SD = .0; three departments: administration, M = 4, SD = .0, and academic, M = 4, SD = .0, and information technology, M = 4, SD = .0; and two job types: dean/director, M = 4, SD = .0, and technical staff, M = 4, SD = .0.) ii. In contrast to the group at-large, in two subgroups the telephone was used "frequently" (one job type: dean/director (M = 4, SD = .0) or "rarely" (one agency: ATC, M = 2.667, SD = .333). iii. In contrast to the group at-large, in eight subgroups videoconferencing was used "sometimes" (three agencies: ATC, M = 3.333, SD = .333, and NCTC, M = 3.333, SD = 117
.333, and MSCTC, M = 3.167, SD = .207; two departments: information technology, M = 3.25, SD = .479, and academics, M = 3.222, SD = .222; and three job types: dean/director, M = 3.25, SD = .479, and technical staff, M = 3.25, SD = .479, and faculty, M = 3.222, SD = .222). iv. In contrast to the group at-large, in seven subgroups phone conferencing was used "sometimes" (three agencies: state office, M = 3, SD = 1, and NTC, M = 3.25, SD = .479, and ATC, M = 3, SD = .5777; two departments: information technology, M = 3.25, SD = .222, and administration, M = 3, SD = .5777; and two job types: dean/director, M = 3.5, SD = .5, and technical staff, M = 3.25, SD = .479). v. In contrast to the group at-large, in three subgroups meeting inperson was used "sometimes" (two agencies: MSCTC, M = 3.083, SD = .193, and the state office, M = 3, SD = .0; and one job type: faculty, M = 3, SD = .0). vi. In contrast to the group at-large, in one subgroup online meetings were used "sometimes" (state office: M = 3, SD = .0), while among five subgroups online meetings were "never" used (two agencies: MSCTC, M = 1.8, SD = .2, and the support center, M = 1.6, SD = .4; one department: information technology, M = 1.75, SD = .479; and two job types: technical
118
staff, M = 1.75, SD = .479, and dean/director M = 1.667, SD = .333). vii. In contrast to the group at-large, in five subgroups ask a question was used "sometimes" (three agencies: NCTC, M = 2.167, SD = .307, and NTC, M = 2, SD = .0, and the state office, M = 2, SD = .0; one department: information technology, M = 2.5, SD = .289; and one job type: technical staff, M = 2.5, SD = .289). viii. In contrast to the group at-large, in seven subgroups the fax was "never" used (three agencies: ATC, M = 1.667, SD = .333, and NTC, M = 1.5, SD = .289, and the state office, M = 1.5, SD = .5; two departments: academics, M = 1.667, SD = .167, and information technology, M = 1.5, SD = .5; and two job types: faculty, M = 1.556, SD = .176, and technical staff, M = 1.5, SD = .5). ix. In contrast to the group at-large, in one subgroup live chat was used "rarely" (one agency: NTC, M = 2, SD = .408). x. In contrast to the group at-large, in five subgroups paper-based communications were used "rarely" (two agencies: MSCTC, M = 2.273, SD = .304, and NTC, M = 2, SD = .408; two departments: administration, M = 2.333, SD = .333 and academics, M = 2.111, SD = .2; and one job type: dean/director, M = 2.667, SD = .333). 119
2. Media used when swapping anecdotes: (See Fig. 20.) a. Analyses were significant (p = .0) for respondents at-large. i. The telephone (M = 3.53, SD = .501) and email (M = 3.50, SD .749) were used "sometimes". ii. Included in the "rarely" used mediums were in-person meetings (M = 2.71, SD = .760), and video (M = 2.56, SD = .981) and phone conferencing (M = 2.29, SD = 902). iii. Included in the mediums "never" used were live chat (M =1.33, SD = .547), ask a question (M = 1.40, SD = .547). Fax (M = 1.74, SD = .682), paper (M = 1.77, SD = .728), and online meetings (M = 1.87, SD = .860). b. Analyses of the subgroups were significant (p < .05) for all but one subgroup: Five of six agencies (ATC, p = .00, F (10, 20) = 6.85; NTC, p = .00, F (10, 42) = 7.39; MSCTC, p = .00, F (10, 101) = 13.04; NCTC, p = .00, F (10, 52) = 12.13; support center, p = .00, F (10, 41) = 5.94).), all departments (academics, p = .00, F (10, 85) = 10.66; services/marketing, p = .00, F (10, 158) = 16.28; technology, p = .00, F (10, 20) = 5.82), and all job types (faculty, p = .00, F (10, 87) = 12.21; dean/director, p = .00, F (10, 25) = 9.16; service, p = .00, F (10, 146) = 15.30; technical, p = .00, F (10, 20) = 5.82; and administration, p = .00, p = .0, F (10, 26) = 10.44).
120
Fig.20. Frequency various media were used for swapping anecdotes.
121
i. Consistent with the group at-large across all agencies, departments and job types were: (a) "Never" using ask a question; and (b) "never" using live chat ii. In contrast to the group at-large, in three subgroups email was used "frequently" (one agency: NTC, M = 4. SD = .0; one department: information technology, M = 4, SD = .0; and one job type: technical staff, M = 4.0, SD = .0). iii. In contrast to the group at-large, in three subgroups telephone calls were used "frequently" (one department: information technology, M = 4.0, SD = 0; and two job types: dean/director, M = 4, SD = .0; and technical staff, M = 4.0, SD = .0). iv. In contrast to the group at-large, in five subgroups videoconferencing was used "sometimes" (two agencies: ATC, M = 3.0, SD = 1.0, and NCTC, M = 3.333, SD = .8165; one department: information technology, M = 3.333, SD = 1.1547; and two job types: dean/director, M = 3.25, SD = .9574, and technical staff, M = 3.3333, SD = 1.1547). v. In contrast to the group at-large, in three subgroups in-person activities were used "sometimes" (one agency: MSCTC, M = 3.0, SD = .8165; one department: information technology, M = 3.0, SD = 1.0; and job type: technical staff, M = 3.0, SD = 1.0), while among one subgroup in-person activities were
122
"never" used (one department: academics, M = 1.875, SD = .6409). vi. In contrast to the group at-large, in four subgroups phone conferencing was used "sometimes" (one agency: ATC, M = 3, SD = 1.0; one department: information technology, M = 3.0, SD =1.0; and two job types: dean/director, M = 3.0, SD = .8165, and technical staff, M = 3.0, SD = 1.0), while among two subgroups phone conferencing was "never" used (one agency: support center, M = 1.6, SD = .8944; and one job type: service staff, M = 1.9286, SD = .8287). vii. In contrast to the group at-large, in seven job types online meetings were used "rarely" (i.e., three agencies: ATC, M = 2.333, SD = .5774, and NCTC, M = 2.333, SD = .8165 and NTC, M = 2.2, SD = .8367; one department: academics, M = 2.0, SD = .7071; and two job types: faculty, M = 2.0, SD = .866; and service staff, M = 2.0, SD = .8771). viii. In contrast to the group at-large, in five subgroups the fax was used "rarely" (two agencies: MSCTC, M = 2.0, SD = .8165, and NTC, M = 2.0, SD = .7071; one department: admin, M = 2.0, SD = .0; and two job types: service staff, M = 2.4, SD = .235, and dean/director, M = 2.0, SD = .0). ix. In contrast to the group at-large, in six subgroups paper-based exchanges were used "rarely" (two agencies: MSCTC, M = 123
2.1111, SD = .7817, and NTC, M = 2.0, SD = .7071; two departments: administration, M = 2.333, SD = .5774, and information technology, M = 2.0, SD = 1.0; and two job types: dean/director, M = 2.667, SD = .5774, and technical staff, M = 2.0, SD = 1.0). 3. Media used when completing daily work involving others: (See Fig. 21.) a. Analyses were significant (p = .0) for the group at-large. i. Email (M = 3.8611, SD .3507), in person (M = 3.6389, SD = .5426), (M = 3.3714, SD = .5983) group meetings (M = 3.3714, SD = .5983) and the telephone (M = 3.457, SD .6122) were used "sometimes". ii. Included in the "rarely" used mediums were voicemail (M = 2.8529, SD .6575, Internet (M = 2.8824, SD .1.0664), videoconferencing (M = 2.7353, SD .8637), phone conferencing (M = 2.4118, SD .7831), paper (M = 2.2727, SD = .8394), fax (M = 2.0, SD = .7276) and online meetings (M = 2.0, SD = .866). iii. Included in the mediums "never" used were ask a question (M = 1.7879, SD = .8572) and live chat (M = 1.5455, SD = .6170).
124
Fig.21. Frequency various media were used for daily work involving others.
125
b. Analyses of the subgroups were significant (p < .05) for six agencies (ATC, p = .00, F (13, 26) = 7.98; NTC, p = .00, F (13, 54) = 5.76; state, p = .00, F (13, 14) = 7.09; MSCTC, p = .00, F (13, 155) = 18.09; NCTC, p = .00, F (13, 67) = 4.37; support center, p = .00, F (13, 66) = 7.01), four departments (academics, p = .00, F (13, 110) = 9.39; administration, p = .00, F (13, 40) = 8.21; services/marketing, p = .00, F (13, 220) = 21.67; technology, p = .00, F (13, 40) = 4.95), and four job types (faculty, p = .00, F (13, 112) = 10.32; dean/director, p = .00, F (13, 39) = 5.70; support/outreach, p = .00, F (13, 205) = 22.19; technical, p = .00, F (13, 40) = 4.95). i. Consistent with the group at-large across all agencies, departments and job types were: (a) "Sometimes" using group meetings; (b) "sometimes" using telephone calls; and (c) "never" using live chat. ii. In contrast to the group at-large, in one subgroup in-person meetings were used "rarely" (one department: services/marketing, M = 2.6471, SD = .8618). iii. In contrast to the group at-large, in three subgroups paper was "never" used (three agencies: ATC, M = 1.6667, SD = .5774, and the state office, M = 1.5, SD = .7071, and the support center, M = 1.8, SD = .8367). iv. In contrast to the group at-large, in six subgroups voicemail was used "sometimes" (two agencies: state office, M = 3.5, SD 126
= .7071, and MSCTC, M = 3.0, SD = .8165; two departments: administration, M = 3.25, SD = .5, and information technology, M = 3.0, SD = .8165; and two job types: dean/director, M = 3.333, SD = .5774, and technical staff, M = 3.0, SD = .8165). v. In contrast to the group at-large, in three subgroups used phone conferencing "sometimes" (one agency: state office, M = 3.0, SD = .0; one job type: dean/director, M = 3.0, SD = .8165) while among one subgroup phone conferencing was "never" used (one agency: support center, M = 1.6667, SD = .8165). vi. In contrast to the group at-large, in four subgroups email was used "frequently" (three agencies: ATC, M = 4.0, SD = .0, and the state office, M = 4.0, SD = .0, and the support center, M = 4.0, SD = .0; and one job type: faculty, M = 4.0, SD = .0). vii. In contrast to the group at-large, in eight subgroups videoconferencing was used "sometimes" (two agencies: MSCTC, M = 3.1667, SD = .5774, and NCTC, M = 3.3333, SD = .5164; three departments: academics, M = 3.0, SD = .7071, and administration, M = 3.25, SD = .9574, and information technology, M = 3.0, SD = .8165; and three job types: faculty, M = 3.2222, SD = .6667, and dean/director, M = 3.5, SD = 1.0, and technical staff, M = 3.0, SD = .8165). viii. In contrast to the group at-large, in five subgroups the fax was "never" used (three agencies: ATC, M = 1.3333, SD = .5774, 127
and NTC, M = 1.8, SD = .4472, and state office, M = 1.5, SD = .7071; one department: academics, M = 1.5556, SD = .5270; and one job type: faculty, M = 1.5556, SD = .7265). ix. In contrast to the group at-large, in seven subgroups the Internet was used" sometimes" (three agencies: NTC, M = 3.0, SD = 1.2247; state office, M = 3.0, SD = .0; and support center, M = 3.0, SD = 1.5492; two departments: academics, M = 3.0, SD =1 .0, and information technology, M = 3.75, SD = .5; and two job types: faculty, M = 3.1111, SD = .1.0541; and technical staff, M = 3.75, SD = .5). x. In contrast to the group at-large, in six subgroups online meetings were "never" used (two agencies: MSCTC, M = 1.6364, SD = .6742, and the support center, M = 1.6667, SD = .81; two departments: administration, M = 1.5, SD = 1.0, and information technology, M = 1.0, SD = 1.5; and two job types: dean/director, M = 1.5, SD = .5774, and technical staff, M = 1.75, SD = .9574). xi. In contrast to the group at-large, in two subgroups ask a question was used "rarely" (one department: information technology, M = 2.0, SD = 2.5; and one job type: technical staff, M = 2.5, SD = .5774).
128
Alignment Facilities: Coordinated Technology Usage In the collection also were data on the liked and disliked features of a compendium of communication technologies (i.e., email, voicemail, videoconferencing, phone, online meeting, live chat and ask a question) that collectively comprised interactional facilities of the consortium. Findings: Communication technology features. 1. Email: (See Fig. 22.) a. Analyses were significant (p = .0) for the group at-large: i. Four features were "liked", and five were "neither liked nor disliked". ii. "Liked" were: Ability to respond quicker (M = 1.22, SD = .422); ease of termination (M = 1.92, SD = .440); no same-place requirement (M = 1.19, SD = .525); and ability for anytime messaging (M = 1.25, SD = .554). iii. "Neither liked nor disliked" were: Text-based content (M = 2.14. SD = .593); slowness to compose (M = 2.39, SD = .55); ease of refusal (M = 2.26, SD = .505); inability to see/hear (M = 2.44, SD = .558); and remoteness of communication (M = 2.22, SD = .422).
129
By Department
By agency
Legend 1 = Like 2 = Neither like nor dislike 3 = Dislike
By Job Type Fig. 22. Email features liked and disliked by agency, department and job type.
130
b. Analyses of the subgroups were significant (p < .05) for five of six agencies (ATC, p = .00, F (8, 18) = 6.80; NTC, p = .005, F (8, 35) = 3.49; MSCTC, p = .00, F (8, 117) = 16.44; NCTC, p = .00, F (8, 45) = 4.58; support center, p = .00, F (8, 45) = 14.06), all departments (academics, p = .00, F (8, 81) = 9.92; administration, p = .00, F (8, 27) = 10.96; services, p = .00, F (8, 152) = 16.13; technology, p = .00, F (8, 27) = 8.04), and all job types (faculty, p = .00, F (8, 81) =7.13; dean/director, p = .01, F (8, 27) =4.71; services, p = .006, F (8, 143) =17.74; technical, p = .00, F (8, 27) =8.04). i. In contrast to the group at-large, four subgroups "liked" text-based content (i.e., two agencies: NCTC, M = 1.9286, SD = .6157, and NTC, M = 1.8, SD = .4472; one department: academics, M = 1.9, SD = .5676; and one job type: faculty, M = 1.9, SD .5676) and one "disliked" text-based content (i.e., administration, M = 3.0; SD = .0). ii. In contrast to the group at-large, five subgroups "neither liked nor disliked" the ease of termination (i.e., two agencies: MSCTC, M = 2.0, SD = .3922, and NCTC, M = 2.1667, SD = .4082; one department: administration, M = 2.0, SD = .0; and two job types: dean/director, M = 2.0, SD = .0, and technical, M = 2.0, SD = .0). iii. In contrast to the group at-large, one subgroup "liked" the ease of refusal (i.e., technical staff, M = 1.75, SD .5).
131
2. Voicemail: (See Fig. 23.) a. Analyses were significant (p = .0) for the group at-large. i. Seven features were "liked"; two were "neither liked nor disliked". 1. Included in the "liked" features were: Spoken content (M = 1.33, SD = .478); quick response (M = 1.38, SD = .551); ease of leaving messages (M = 1.11, SD = .319); ease of termination (M = 1.97, SD = .453); no same-place requirement (M = 1.25, SD = .500); anytime messaging (M = 1.39, SD = .447); and proximity from voice (M = 1.72, SD = .454). 2. Features "neither liked nor disliked" included: Easy to refuse (M = 2.17, SD .447) and inability to see (M = 2.17, SD = .447). b. Analyses of the subgroups were significant (p < .05) for six agencies (ATC, p = .014, F (8, 17) = 3.51; NTC, F (8, 36) = 6.88, p =.00; state, p = .030, F (8, 9) = 3.88; MSCTC, p = .00, F (8, 116) = 7.37; NCTC, p =.008, F (8, 44) = 3.08; support center, p =.00, F (8, 45) = 8.99), four departments (academics, p = .00, F (8, 81) = 8.60; administration, p = .005, F (8, 27) = 3.75; service/marketing, p = .00, F (8, 150) = 9.05; technology, p = .00, F (8, 27) = 15.88), and four job types (faculty, p = .000, F (8, 81) = 9.78; dean/director, p = .000, F (8, 27) =6.26; services, p = .000, F (8, 141) =8.26; technical, p = .000, F (8, 27) =15.88).
132
i. In contrast to the group at-large, five subgroups "neither liked nor disliked" the ease of termination (i.e., two agencies: ATC, M = 2.0, SD = .0, and NCTC, M = 2.4, SD = .5477, and the state office, M = 2.0, SD = .0; one department: administration, M = 2.5, SD = .5774; and two job types: dean/director, M = 2.25, SD = .5; and faculty, M = 2.0, SD = .0). ii. In contrast to the group at-large, one subgroup "liked" the ease of refusal (i.e., one agency: state office, M = 1.5, SD = .7071). iii. In contrast to the group at-large, one subgroup "neither liked nor disliked" proximity from voice (i.e., state office, M = 2.0, SD = .0). 3. Videoconferencing: (See Fig, 24.) a. Analyses were significant (p = .0) for the group at-large. i. Seven features were liked and one was "neither liked nor disliked". ii. Included in the "liked" features were: Audio-visual content capacity (M = 1.15, SD = .360); not easy to refuse (M = 1.85, SD = .436); no same-place required (M = 1.15, SD = .360); ease of composition (M = 1.44, SD = .561); not easy to terminate (M = 1.88, SD = .327); quick response (M = 1.18, SD = .387); and ability to see/hear (M = 1.24, SD = .502).
133
By agency
By Department
Legend 1 = Like 2 = Neither like nor dislike 3 = Dislike
By Job Type Fig. 23. Voicemail features liked and disliked by agency, department and job type.
134
By Department
By agency
Legend 1 = Like 2 = Neither like nor dislike 3 = Dislike
By Job Type Fig. 24. Videoconferencing features liked and disliked by agency, department and job type. 135
b. Analyses of the subgroups were significant (p < .05) for five agencies (ATC, p = .00, F (7, 16) = 10.29; NTC, p = .019, F (7, 23) = 3.07; MSCTC, p =.00, F (7, 104) = 11.29; NCTC, p =.00, F (7, 40) = 5.03; support center, p =.006, F (7, 32) = 3.57), four departments (academics, p = .00, F (7, 71) = 10.22; administration, p = .007, F (7, 24) = 3.71; service/marketing, p = .00, F (7, 120) = 10.38; technology, p = .00, F (7, 24) = 6.00), and three job types (faculty, p = .00, F (7, 71) = 12.32; service, p =.00, F (7, 112) = 9.82; technical, p = .00, F (7, 24) = 6.00). i. In contrast to the group at-large, within three subgroups the easy to terminate feature was "neither liked nor disliked" (i.e., one agency: ATC, M = 2.0, SD = .0; one department: administration, M = 2.0, SD = .0; and one job type: faculty, M = 2.0, SD = .0). ii. In contrast to the group at-large, the not easy to refuse feature was "neither liked nor disliked" by one agency (i.e., support center, M = 2.0, SD = .0) and one department (i.e., administration, M = 2.25, SD = .5). iii. In contrast to the group at-large, the same time availability requirement was "neither liked nor disliked" by one agency (i.e., NTC, M = 1.75, SD = .5) and one department (i.e., administration, M = 1.75, SD = .5).
136
4. Phone conferencing: (See Fig. 25.) a. Analyses were significant (p = .0) for the group at-large. i. Seven features were liked and two were "neither liked nor disliked". ii. Included in the "liked" features were: Spoken content (M = 1.16, SD = .374); quick response (M = 1.1, SD .3051); ease of entering message (M = 1.26, SD = .445); not easy to terminate (M = 1.94, SD = .359); not easy to refuse a message (M = 1.84, SD = .454); no same place requirement (M = 1.16, SD = .374); and perceived proximity from voice (M = 1.48, SD = .508). iii. Features "neither liked nor disliked" included: Partner must be available at the same time (M = 2.16, SD = .454); cannot see my partner (M = 2.20, SD = .484). b. Analyses of the subgroups were significant (p < .05) for five agencies (ATC, p =.00, F (8, 18) = 7.5; NTC, p =.00, F (8, 27) = 9.19; MSCTC, p =.00, F (8, 107) = 15.80; NCTC, p =.00, F (8, 36) = 6.89; support center, p =.024, F (8, 26) = 2.76), four departments (academics, p =.00, F (8, 72) = 8.87; administration, p = .007, F (8, 27) = 7.30; service/marketing, p = .00, F (8, 115) = 11.72; technology, p = .00, F (8, 27) = 17.79), and four job types (faculty, p = .00, F (8, 72) = 7.44; dean/director, p = .001, F (8, 27) = 5.06; service, p = .00, F (8, 106) = 11.70; technical, p = .00, F (8, 27) = 17.79).
137
By Department
By agency
Legend 1 = Like 2 = Neither like nor dislike 3 = Dislike
By Job Type Fig. 25. Phone conferencing features liked and disliked by agency, department and job type.
138
i. In contrast to the group at-large, within eight subgroups the not easy to terminate feature was "neither liked nor disliked" (i.e., three agencies: ATC, M = 2.0, SD = .0, and MSCTC, M = 2.0, SD = .0, and NTC, M = 2.0, SD = 0; three departments: academics, M = 2.0, SD .0, and administration, M = 2.0, SD .8165, and technology, M = 2.0, SD .0; and two job types: faculty, M = 2.0, SD = .0; and technical, M = 2.0, SD = .0). ii. In contrast to the group at-large, within one subgroup the same time availability requirement was "liked" (i.e., one agency: NTC, M = 1.75, SD = .5). iii. In contrast to the group at-large, within five subgroups the not easy to refuse feature was "neither liked nor disliked" (i.e., two agencies: MSCTC, M = 2.0, SD .0, and NTC, M = 2.25, SD = .5; two departments: academics, M = 2.0, SD .0, and technology, M = 2.0, SD .0; and one job type: technical, M = 2.0, SD = .0). 5. Online meetings: (See Fig. 26.) a. Analyses were significant (p = .0) for the group at-large. i. Four features were liked and five were "neither liked nor disliked". ii. Included in the "liked" features were: Quick response capacity (M = 1.52, SD = .586); not easy to refuse a message (M = 1.96, SD = .351); no same-place requirement (M = 1.48, SD = .586); and anytime messaging capacity (M = 1.68, SD = .627).
139
iii. Features "neither liked nor disliked" included: Content is text (M = 2.00, SD = .417); slowness of composition (M = 2.28, SD = .458); not easy to terminate (M = 2.04, SD = .351); cannot see or hear (M = 2.24, SD = .523); and communication partner may seem remote (M = 2.08, SD = .400). b. Analyses of the subgroups were significant (p < .05) for one agency (support center, p = .001, F (8, 27) = 4.70), four departments (academics, p = .003, F (8, 63) = 3.41; administration, p = .001, F (8, 45) = 4.11; service/marketing, p = .004, F (8, 89) = 2.57; technology, p = .036, F (8, 18) = 2.75), and three job types (faculty, p =.002, F (8, 63) = 3.63; service, p =.004, F (8, 80) = 3.13; technical, p =.03, F (8, 18) = 2.75). i. In contrast to the group at-large, within one subgroup the textbased content was "liked" (i.e., one department; academics, M = 1.875, SD .3536). ii. In contrast to the group at-large, within four subgroups the not easy to refuse feature was "neither liked nor disliked" (i.e., two departments: academics, M = 2.0, SD .0, and administration, M = 2.0, SD .0, and technology, M = 2.0, SD = .0; and two job types: faculty, M = 2.0, SD = .0, and technical, M = 2.0, SD = .0).
140
By agency
By Department
Legend 1 = Like 2 = Neither like nor dislike 3 = Dislike
By Job Type Fig. 26. Online meeting features liked and disliked by agency, department and job type.
141
6.
Live chat: (See Fig. 27.) a. Analyses were significant (p = .0) for the group at-large. i. Five features were liked and four were "neither liked nor disliked". ii. Included in the "liked" features were: Content is text (M = 1.96, SD = .464); not required to be in the same place (M = 1.26, SD = .449); capacity for quick response (M = 1.33, SD = .482); easy to terminate an exchange (M = 1.91, SD = .288); and partner seems remote (M = 1.88, SD = .338). iii. Features "neither liked nor disliked" included: Slow to compose (M = 2.25, SD = .442); easy to refuse a message (M = 2.08, SD = .282); cannot see/hear partner (M = 2.04, SD = .562); and cannot send anytime (M = 2.17, SD = .482). b. Analyses of the subgroups were significant (p < .05) for four agencies (state, p = .017, F (8, 9) = 4.63; MSCTC, p = .003, F (8, 69) = 3.38; NCTC, p = .022, F (8, 36) = 2.65; support center, p =.007, F (8, 27) = 3.44), two departments (academics, p = .00, F (8, 63) = 7.07; service/marketing, p = .00, F (8, 89) = 6.80), and two job types (faculty, p = .00, F (8, 63) = 10.77; service, p = .00, F (8, 80) = 6.47). i. In contrast to the group at-large, within five subgroups text-based content was "neither liked nor disliked" (i.e., two agencies: MSCTC, M = 2.0, SD = .0, and NCTC, M = 2.2, SD = .4472; one department: services/marketing, M = 2.0909, SD = .5394; and two job types: faculty, M = 2.0, SD = .0; service, M = 2.0, SD = .6667). 142
ii. In contrast to the group at-large, within four subgroups the easy to terminate feature was "neither liked nor disliked" (i.e., two agencies: MSCTC, M = 2.0, SD = .0, and the state office, M = 2.0, SD = .0; one department: academics, M = 2.0, SD = .0; and one job type: faculty, M = 2.0, SD = .0). iii. In contrast to the group at-large, within one subgroup the "cannot see/hear partner" feature was "liked" (i.e., one job type: faculty, M = 1.875, SD = .3536). iv. In contrast to the group at-large, within two subgroups the partner seems remote feature was "neither liked nor disliked" (i.e., one agency: state office, M = 2.0, SD = .0; and one job type: faculty, M = 2.0, SD = .0). 7. Ask a Question: (See Fig. 28.) a. Analyses were significant (p = .0) for the group at-large. i. Five features were liked and four were "neither liked nor disliked". ii. Included in the "liked" features were: Context is text (M = 1.93, SD = .385); capacity for a quick response (M = 1.26, SD = .447); ease of termination (M = 1.96, SD = .338); and capacity to send anytime (M = 1.26, SD = .526); same-place not required (M = 1.27, SD = .534).
143
By agency
By Department
Legend 1 = Like 2 = Neither like nor dislike 3 = Dislike
By Job Type Fig. 27. Live chat features liked and disliked by agency, department and job type.
144
By Department
By agency
Legend 1 = Like 2 = Neither like nor dislike 3 = Dislike
By Job Type Fig. 28. Ask a question features liked and disliked by agency, department and job type.
145
i. Features "neither liked nor disliked" included: Slow to compose (M = 2.31, SD = .471); easy to refuse a message (M = 2.08, SD = .392); cannot see/hear partner (M = 2.00, SD = .392); and partner seems remote (M = 2.07, SD = .385). b. Analyses of the subgroups were significant (p < .05) for five agencies (ATC, p = .001, F (8, 9) = 11.50; NTC, p = .00, F (8, 27) = 5.55; MSCTC, p = .00, F (8, 79) = 6.46; NCTC, p = .011, F (8, 44) = 2.88; support center, p =.00, F (8, 27) = 9.87), three departments (academics, p = .00, F (8, 72) = 12.08; service/marketing, p =.00, F (8, 89) = 6.97; technology, p = .00, F (8, 26) = 5.76), and four job types (faculty, p = .00, F (8, 63) = 12.04; dean/director, p = .044, F (8, 26) = 2.39; service, p = .00, F (8, 89) = 8.59; technical, p = .00, F (8, 26) = 5.76). i. In contrast to the group at-large, within three subgroups text-based content was "neither liked nor disliked" (i.e., one agency: ATC, M = 2.0, SD = .0; and two job types: faculty, M = 2.0, SD = .0, and service, M = 2.0, SD = .4472). ii. In contrast to the group at-large, within three subgroups the easy to refuse feature was "liked" (i.e., one agency: MSCTC, M = 1.9, SD = .3162; one department: technology, M = 1.75, SD .0; and one job type: technical, M = 1.75, SD = .5). iii. In contrast to the group at-large, within nine subgroups the easy to terminate feature was "neither liked nor disliked" (i.e., four agencies: ATC, M = 2.0, SD = .0; NCTC, M = 2.1667, SD = .4082; 146
NTC, M = 2.0, SD .0; and support center, M = 2.0, SD .0; two departments: academics, M = 2.0, SD = .0, and services/marketing, M = 2.0, SD = .4472; and three job types: dean/director, M = 2.0, SD = .0, and faculty, M = 2.0, SD = .0, and service, M = 2.0, SD = .4472). iv. In contrast to the group at-large, within four subgroups "the cannot see/hear partner" feature was "liked" (one agency: MSCTC, M = 1.9, SD = .3162; one department: technology, M = 1.75, SD = .5; and two job types: faculty, M = 1.875, SD = .3536; and technical, M = 1.75, SD = .5). Alignment Facilities: Coordinated Communication Styles Located in the data were media preferences for four types of communication. Findings: Media for documentation/fact finding. (See Fig. 29.) 1. Sharing paper documents: Analyses were significant for the group at-large (p = .041, F (2, 105) = 3.25, but were not significant for any subgroup. a. A first preference for in-person was expressed by .47 N, while .36 N opted first for email, .14 N for paper or fax, and .03 N for phone. 2. Sharing electronic documents: Analyses were not significant. 3. Requesting specific information from a colleague in a different location: Analyses were significant for the group at-large (p = .0, F (2, 200) = 6.73) and for three subgroups (two departments: academics, p = .045, F (2, 26) = 3.51, and service/marketing, p = .045, F (2, 49) = 3.30; and one job type: service staff, p = .00, F (2, 46) = 12.69). 147
a. A first preference for email was expressed by .81 N, while .17 N opted first for phone, and .03 N opted first for in-person. 4. Finding out information about a specific topic: Analyses were significant for the group at-large (p = .002, F (2, 98) = 1.20) and for one subgroup (i.e., one department: administration, p = .022, F (2, 8) = 6.41). a. A first preference for email was expressed by .39 N, while .31 N opted first for in-person, .17 N for ask a question, .11 N for phone, and .03 N for paper or fax. Findings: Media for general communication/events. (See Fig. 30.) 1. Making general announcements: Analyses were significant for the group atlarge (p = .004, F (2, 98) = 5.79) and for three subgroups (i.e., one agency: NTC, p = .010, F (2, 11) = 7.29; one department: service/marketing, p = .00, F (2, 47) = 14.47; and one job type: service staff, p = .00, F (2, 43) = 9.21). a. A first preference for email was expressed by .86 N, while .11 N opted first for in-person, and .03 N opted first for paper or fax. 2. Arranging a formal meeting: Analyses were not significant. 3. Organizing a social event: Analyses were significant for the group at-large (p = .001, F (2, 102) = 7.59) and for four subgroups (i.e., two departments: administration, p = .00, F (2, 9) = 26.68; service/marketing, p = .021, F (2, 49) = 4.19; and two job types: faculty, p = .038, F (2, 25) = 3.73; and service staff, p = .025, F (2, 47) = 4.01).
148
Fig.29. Preferences for documentation and fact finding.
149
Fig.30. Preferences for general communication/events planning.
150
a.
A first preference for email was expressed by .64 N, while .22 N opted first for in-person, .08 N for phone conferencing, and .03 N for phone and .03 N for paper or fax.
4. Persuading a colleague in a different office to attend a conference: Analyses were significant for the group at-large (p = .00, F (2, 102) = 2.57) and seven subgroups (i.e., one agency: MSCTC, p = .007, F (2, 38) = 5.73; three departments: academics, p = .012, F (2, 27) = 5.25; service/marketing, p = .00, F (2, 49) = 13.46; technology, p = .045, F (2, 9) = 4.47; and two job types: service staff, p = .00, F (2, 47) = 19.05; technical staff, p = .045, F (2, 9) = 4.47). a. A first preference for in-person was expressed by .58 N, while .25 N opted first for phone, and .17 N for email Findings: Media for relationship building. (See Fig. 31.) 1. Keeping in touch: Analyses were significant for the group at-large (p = .0, F (2, 89) = 22.48) and for eight subgroups (i.e., three agencies: ATC, p = .027, F (2, 6) = 7.00, and NCTC, p = .00, F (2, 9) = 24.42, and the support center, p = .001, F (2, 15) = 12.89; two departments: academics, p = .029, F (2, 22) = 4.17, and service/marketing, p = .00, F (2, 46) = 27.87; and three job types: faculty, p = .006, F (2, 20) = 6.59, and dean/director, p = .014, F (2, 9) = 7.18, and service staff, p = .00, F (2, 43) = 29.7). a. A first preference for email was expressed by .97 N, while .03 N opted first for phone.
151
Fig.31. Preferences for relationships building.
152
Discussing something relevant with others in the same line of work: Analyses were significant for the group at-large (p = .0, F (2, 105) = 1.71) and for one subgroup (i.e., one agency: state office, p = .020, F (92, 3) = 18.60). b. A first preference for email was expressed by .50 N, while .33 N opted first for in-person, .06 N for phone conferencing, .06 N for video conferencing, and .03 N for phone and .03 N for meeting online. 2. Exchanging opinions: Analyses were significant for the group at-large (p = .0, F (2, 103) = 6.52) and for four subgroups (i.e., one agency: support center, p = .023, F (2, 15) = 4.87; two departments: administration, p = .00, F (2, 8) = 41.13, and service/marketing, p = .009, F (2, 50) = 5.15; and one job type: service staff, p = .010, F (2, 46) = 5.06). a. A first preference for phone was expressed by .42 N, while .31 N opted first for email, .17 N for in-person, .06 N for phone conferencing, and .03 N for video conferencing and .03 N for meeting online 3. Working with a group of colleagues from many locations: Analyses were not significant. Findings: Media for personal and personnel matters. (See Fig. 32.) 1. For raising minor non-urgent questions: Analyses were significant (p = .001, F (2, 101) = 14.02) for the group at-large and for seven subgroups (i.e., one agency: MSCTC, p = .002, F (2, 37; three departments: academics, p = .00, F (2, 27) = 12.01, and administration, p = .02, F (2, 9) = 6.18, and technology, p = .004, F (2, 8) = 12.44; and three job types: faculty, p = .00, F (2, 26) =
153
11.72, and dean/director, p = .006, F (2, 9) = 9.30, and technical staff, p = .004, F (2, 8) = 12.44). a. A first preference for email was expressed by .81 N, while .11 N opted for in-person, and .08 N opted for phone. 2. Delivering a confidential message to a different office: Analyses were not significant. 3. Discussing a personal matter: Analyses were significant (p = .004, F (2, 95) = 45.32) for the group at-large and for ten subgroups (i.e., four agencies: NTC, p = .05, F (2, 12) = 3.88, and MSCTC, p = .00, F (2, 35) = 14.89; and NCTC, p = .00, F (2, 14) = 33.52, and support center, p = .017, F (2, 12) = 5.88; three departments: academics, p = .00, F (2, 26) = 22.26; and administration, p = .00, F (2, 7) = 70.80; and services/marketing, p = .00, F (2, 45) = 20.23; and three job types: faculty, p = .00, F (2, 25) = 21.05; and dean/director, p = .00, F (2, 8) = 317.82; and service staff, p = .00, F (2, 42) = 20.58). a. A first preference for in-person was expressed by .97 N, while the remaining .03 N opted for phone. 4. Resolving a disagreement: Analyses were not significant. Patterns in the Quantitative Data Several patterns were evident in the findings associated with quantitative data. Findings: Virtual Team Patterns 1. The Distance Minnesota consortium embodied three characteristics of a virtual team (i.e., differing agencies, multiple locations and distances that make working in-person on a daily basis impractical). 154
Fig 32.Preferences for personal and personnel matters.
155
Findings: Virtual Community of Practice Patterns 1. Prevalence of community-oriented behaviors: When compared to community stages ranging from non-existent, to basic, extended, distributed and integrated, reported behaviors took the form of a reverse bell curve weighted toward the more basic end of the spectrum. Community-oriented behavior was prevalent among most agencies, all departments and most job types. 2. Concentrations of communities: Basic stage 1 and extended stage 2 behaviors were reported by half (.5 N) or more of the respondents from 14 of the 16 subgroups. Exceptions included one agency (MSCTC) and one job type (faculty). Distributed stage 3 behaviors were reported by 12 of the 16 subgroups. Exceptions included three agencies (MSCTC, support center, state office), one department (student services/marketing) and one job type (faculty). Integrated stage 4 behaviors were reported by half of the subgroups. Exceptions included three agencies (MSCTC, support center, state office), two departments (student services/marketing, technology) and three job types (faculty, student service/marketing, technical). 3. Evidence of community elements and interests: Commentary addressed the six elements necessary to communities (i.e., domain, community of people, capabilities, shared practice, space/place and representation/artifact). Aligned with the group at-large, all agencies, all departments minus one (i.e., technology) and all job types minus one (i.e., technical) were consistently most interested in domain and consistently secondarily interested in capabilities or community. Space/place and representation/artifact were of 156
interest to a minority at-large, and within each agency, all departments minus one (i.e., technology) and all job types minus one (i.e., technical). 4. Evidence of domain-related interests: A majority at-large was interested foremost in one domain theme – the consortium mission and purposes, and secondarily in the consortium position in the educational practice. Mission and purpose and/or position in practice were consistently in the top two interests of all agencies, departments and job types. The only domain theme not of low interest to one or more agencies, departments or job types was mission and purpose. Findings: Engagement Patterns 1. Mutuality mechanisms embodied in joint tasks: For the majority at-large, daily work involved working with others in similar positions, solving problems in consultation with others, completing shared projects and swapping anecdotes. For the majority at-large, work "sometimes" involved peers at their same site, other, or their same and others sites. Noted exceptions included staff working in service roles wherein work "rarely" involved working with peers at their same and other sites. While for the majority atlarge, work "sometimes" involved swapping anecdotes with others at their own sites, and "rarely" with those at other sites or their same and other sites, those working for one agency (i.e., support center), one department (i.e., services/marketing) and in one job type (i.e., service staff) "rarely" swapped anecdotes with individuals at other sites, or their same and other sites.
157
2. Interactional facilities supporting engagement: Email and telephone were consistently the two most popular interactional facilities (i.e., used "sometimes"). In-person, phone conferencing and video conferencing were consistently used on "rare" occasions, while live chat and ask a question were consistently "never" used. The patterns of "never" using ask a question and live chat for swapping anecdotes were consistent across all subgroups (i.e., by agency, department and job type). Patterns in "sometimes" using groups meetings and telephone calls and never using live chat to complete daily work were consistent across the group at-large and all subgroups (i.e., by agency, department and job type). Patterns in subgroups appeared to regularly envelop exceptions. For example, in seven subgroups, in the course of shared project work email was used "frequently" rather than "sometimes". In two subgroups the telephone was used "frequently" while in a different subgroup it was used "rarely". Among three subgroups, email and telephone were used "frequently" to swap anecdotes. Five subgroups, three subgroups, and four subgroups respectively reported "sometimes" rather than "rare" use of video conferencing, phone conferencing, and in-person activities for swapping anecdotes. Seven subgroups, five subgroups and six subgroups respectively reported using online meetings, fax and paper to swap anecdotes "rarely" rather than "never".
In contrast to the group at-large, service/marketing departments used inperson meetings less frequently in daily work (i.e., "rarely" rather than 158
"sometimes"). Also distinctive from the group at-large, in the course of daily work six subgroups used voicemail more frequently, three subgroups used phone conferencing more frequently, eight used videoconferencing more frequently and seven used the Internet more frequently (i.e., "sometimes" rather than "rarely"). Two subgroups used ask a question more frequently (i.e., "rarely" rather than "never"). Three subgroups used paper less frequently, five used the fax less frequently and six used online meetings less frequently (i.e., "never" rather than "rarely").
Findings: Patterns of Alignment in Communications Coordination 1. Several patterns regarding communication technology likes and dislikes were evident:
Ordered from the most to fewest liked features, the group at-large preferred videoconferencing, phone conferencing and voicemail were most popular (seven liked), followed by live chat, ask a question (five liked), and then email and online meetings (four liked). Among the group at-large, no feelings of dislike were noted for any feature of any medium. Among the group at-large the two most consistently liked features across all mediums were capacity for a quick response and no same-place requirement.
With the exception of the state office whereby assessments of email likes and disliked were not significant and administrative staff who disliked the text159
based content inherent in email, the group at-large and five of six agencies, all departments, and all job types either "liked", or "neither liked nor disliked" the nine assessed features. Five subgroups (i.e., three agencies: ATC, MSCTC, support center; two departments: services/marketing, technology; service staff) were in full agreement with the group at-large. The preferences of seven specific subgroups (two agencies: NTC, NCTC; two departments: academics, administration; three job types: faculty, dean/director, technical staff) were differentiated with regard to three features (i.e., text-based content, ease of termination, ease of refusal).
The group at-large and all agencies, departments, and job types either "liked", or "neither liked nor disliked" the nine assessed features of voicemail. Eight subgroups (i.e., three agencies: MSCTC, NTC, support center; three departments: academics, student service/marketing, technology; two job types: service and technical staff) were in full agreement with the group atlarge. The preferences of six subgroups (three agencies: ATC, NCTC, state office; one department: administration; two job types: service and technical staff) were differentiated with regard to three features (i.e., ease of termination, ease of refusal, proximity from voice).
With the exception of the state office whereby assessments of videoconferencing features were not significant, the group at-large and all subgroups either "liked", or "neither liked nor disliked" the eight assessed 160
features. Eight subgroups (i.e., three agencies: MSCTC, NCTC, NTC; three departments: academics, student service/marketing, technology; two job types: service and technical staff) were in full agreement with the group atlarge. The preferences of four subgroups (i.e., two agencies: ATC, support center; one department: administration; one job type: faculty) were differentiated with regard to three features (i.e., ease of termination, ease of refusal, same time availability requirement).
With the exception of the state office whereby assessments of phone conferencing features were not significant, the group at-large and all subgroups by agency, department, and job type either "liked", or "neither liked nor disliked" the nine assessed features. Six subgroups (i.e., two agencies: NCTC, support center; one department: student services/marketing; two job types: dean/director, service staff) were in full agreement with the group atlarge. The preferences of seven subgroups (i.e., three agencies: ATC, MSCTC, NTC; two departments: academics, administration; two job types: faculty, technical staff) were differentiated with regard to three features (i.e., not easy to terminate, same time availability requirement, not way to refuse).
With the exception of ATC, MSCTC, NCTC, NTC, the state office and dean/director positions whereby assessments of online meeting features were not significant, the group at-large, the support center, all departments, and the three other job types (i.e., faculty, service, and technical) either "liked", or 161
"neither liked nor disliked", the nine assessed features. Three subgroups were in full agreement with the group at-large (i.e., one agency: support center; one department: student service/marketing; one job type: service staff). The preferences of four subgroups (i.e., two departments: academics, administration; two job types: faculty, technical staff) were differentiated with regard to two features (i.e., text-based content, not easy to refuse).
With the exception of ATC and NTC, administration and technology departments, and dean/director and technical positions whereby assessments of live chat features were not significant, the group at-large, the other four agencies (i.e., MSCTC, NCTC, state office and support center), the other two departments (i.e., academics and services/marketing) and two other job types (i.e., faculty and service) either "liked", or "neither liked nor disliked" the nine assessed features. One subgroup (i.e., support center) was in full agreement with the group at-large. The preferences of seven subgroups (i.e., three agencies: MSCTC, NCTC, state office; two departments: academics, student service/marketing; two job types: faculty, service staff) were differentiated with regard to four features (i.e., text-based content, easy to terminate, cannot see or hear partner, partner seems remote).
With the exception of the state office and administration departments whereby assessments of ask a question features were not significant, the group at-large, the other five agencies (i.e., ATC, MSCTC, NCTC, NTC and support center), 162
the other three departments (i.e., academics, service/marketing and technology) and all job types either "liked", or "neither liked nor disliked" the nine assessed features. No subgroups were in full agreement with the group at-large. The preferences of twelve subgroups (i.e., five agencies: ATC, MSCTC, NCTC, NTC, support center; three departments: academics, student service/marketing, technology; four job types: faculty, dean/director, service and technical staff) were differentiated with regard to four features (i.e., textbased content, easy to refuse, easy to terminate, cannot see or hear partner).
2. Other patterns regarding the media preferences for four types of communication were evident also.
Media for documentation sharing and fact finding: A majority of the group atlarge shared paper documents by meeting in-person or through email. A majority of the group at-large, two departments (academics, student services/marketing) and those working as service staff used email for requesting specific information from a colleague in a different location. A majority of the group at-large and administration exchanged email or met inperson to find out information on a specific topic.
Media for general communication and event planning: A majority of the group at-large, one agency (NTC), one department (student service/marketing) and those working in one job type (service staff) used email for making 163
general announcements. A majority of the group at-large, two departments (administration, student service/marketing), and those working in one job type (service staff) used email for organizing a social event. The group at-large, one agency (MSCTC), three departments (academics, student service/marketing and technology) and those working in two job types (service and technical staff) met in-person when persuading a colleague in a different office to attend a conference.
Media for relationship building: A majority of the group at-large, three agencies (ATC, NCTC, support center), two departments (academics, student service/marketing) and those working in three job types (faculty, dean/director, service staff) used email to keep in touch. A majority of the group at-large and the state office met in-person or used email to discuss something relevant with peers located elsewhere. A majority of the group atlarge, one agency (support center), two departments (administration, student service/marketing) and those working in one job type (service staff) used the phone or email to exchange opinions.
Media for personal and personnel matters: When raising minor non-urgent questions, the group at-large, one agency (MSCTC), three departments (academics, administration and technology) and those working in three job types used email. A majority of the group at-large, four agencies (MSCTC, NCTC, NTC and the support center), three departments (academics, 164
administration and student service/marketing) and three job types (faculty, dean/director and service staff) met in-person when discussing a personal matter. Qualitative Data and Findings Data from documentation reviews, interviews, and open meetings were summarized for review. Alignment with a Virtual Team and Virtual Community of Practice Information contained data that was useful for comparing the consortium to a virtual team and a virtual community of practice. Indications of a Virtual Team The operating schedules of the sites involved were located and summarized. (See Table 4.) Mined from were data used to generate an overview of governance (Fig. 33) and of the consortium office/support center (Fig. 34). Sample data were related to the characteristics of a virtual team. (See Table 4.) Findings: Indications of a complex virtual team. 1. Different operating schedules: (See Table 4.) The sites affiliated with the consortium operated on largely differing schedule that overlapped 32 hours four days a week. 2. Formal organization: (See Fig. 33 and 34, and Table 5.) The consortium was formally organized, but loosely integrated with member colleges. The consortium was founded on and operated through a formal legal document known as an inter-agency agreement. The agreement was renewed in threeyear cycles and permissions were granted to write mutually agreed upon 165
addendums on an ongoing basis. A method for adding new members was not stipulated, but a one-year advance notice was required to opt out. The agreement stipulated also: (a) The role of the membership at-large, the member, and the consortium support center; and (b) the foundational relationship management mechanisms through which the consortium would operate (i.e., fiscal arrangements for revenues; fiscal arrangements for expenditures; review/change cycle for fiscal arrangements; clinical site usage; materials and book arrangements; participating college responsibilities; consortium office/support center responsibilities; process for resolution of disputes; and exit opportunities).
The Distance Blueprint designated primary responsibility for serving the campus students taking online courses to campuses and primary responsibility for online majors to the support center. The consortium office/support center was dedicated to facilitating the online consortium system design, development, and deployment, provision of direct services that supported technology-assisted recruitment and retention, and communication and information disbursement. The Organizational Design of the consortium office/support center showed students and frontline staffs from `campuses were primary customers of the Support Center advisors and information specialists.
166
Table 4 Hours of Operation by Site Mon
Tues
Wed
Thurs
Fri
Sat
Sun
7:30 am – 4 pm
Closed
Closed
Alexandria Technical College Alexandria Campus
7:30 am – 4 pm
7:30 am – 4 pm
7:30 am – 4 pm
7:30 am – 4 pm
Minnesota State Community and Technical College Detroit Lakes Campus
7 am – 10 pm
7 am – 10 pm
7 am – 10 pm
7 am – 10 pm
Closed
Closed
Closed
Fergus Falls Campus
8 am – pm
5
8 am – pm
5
8 am – pm
5
8 am – pm
5
8 am – 5 pm
Closed
Closed
Moorhead Campus
6 am – pm
6
6 am – pm
6
6 am – pm
6
6 am – pm
6
6 am – 6 pm
Closed
Closed
Wadena Campus
7 am – pm
6
7 am – pm
6
7 am – pm
6
7 am – pm
6
Closed
Closed
Closed
Northland Community and Technical College East Grand Forks Campus
7:30 am – 4:30 pm
7:30 am – 4:30 pm
7:30 am – 4:30 pm
7:30 am – 4:30 pm
7:30 am – 4:30 pm
Closed
Closed
Thief River Falls Campus
7:30 am – 5 pm
7:30 am – 5 pm
7:30 am – 5 pm
7:30 am – 5 pm
7:30 am – 5 pm
Closed
Closed
6:30 am – 4 pm
Closed
Closed
7 am – 9 pm
10 am – 3:30 pm
10 am – 3:30 pm
Northwest Technical College Bemidji Campus
6:30 am – 4 pm
6:30 am – 4 pm
6:30 am – 4 pm
6:30 am – 4 pm
Online support center Support center
7 am – pm
9
7 am – pm
9
7 am – pm
9
167
7 am – pm
9
Fig.33. Online Consortium Governance System Chart: Developed from documentation reviewed.
168
Fig.34. Organizational Chart of the Online Consortium Office/Support Center.
169
Table 5 Characteristics of a Virtual Team and Pertinent Data on the Consortium Theme
Sample Data:
Formally Documentation: (1) Inter-agency agreement existed and indicated that governance would be organized lead by Colleges, participatory, and involve gatherings; meeting notes showed that some groups were commissioned formally. (2) A Distance Blueprint depicted the intended relationship between and respective responsibilities of colleges and the support center. (3) The Organizational Design depicted a pre-planned system for offering direct service to students, personnel, and stakeholders. (4) Formally designed and approved processes, procedures, and forms appeared in various locations in Sys Doc. Interviews: (1) Participants acknowledged the differentiated roles of the Presidents, Chief Academic Officers/Provosts, Deans, and staff representing their respective Colleges. (2) Participants described how the formal structure was loosely integrated with the member college structures: “Positions are not aligned. Any particular problem may need to be addressed by a registrar at one college, a registrar tech at another and an admission staff at a third location. This makes it difficult to know who needs the information” (#09). “Be inclusive. Let people excuse themselves if they don’t think the event or agenda pertains to themselves” (#37). Open meetings: (1) Participants referenced governing and operating groups when reviewing the prototype for a proposed member portal (Member Network). Oriented to Documentation: (1) Meeting agendas/notes described the work of groups. (2) Formally group work designed and approved processes, procedures, and forms contained the name of the authoring and approving groups. Interviews: (1) Participants acknowledged the governing and operating groups. (2) Participants identified and discussed processes (e.g., scheduling, registration) that were designed and commissioned by groups. (3) Participants discussed the solutions-focus and relationship basis of the group work: “People seem willing to communicate to solve problems and have demonstrated they can work together in a consortium model and connect it to other things at campuses” (#38). “We have a wonderful group to work within our consortium; I would hope any other college would be as fortunate if they were to move forward with a consortium” (#41). Open meetings: (1) Personnel from all Member Colleges participated in the open meetings. Technical nature of network
Documentation: (1) The archive of meeting agendas/notes and website suggested numerous electronic communication tools were available and used regularly (e.g., email, interactive video and teleconferencing, telephone, voicemail, live chat, fax, ask a question, and meeting software. Interviews: (1) Participants acknowledged the available electronic communication tools. (2) Participants confirmed their appointments, received drafts and approved transcripts via email. Open meetings: Open meetings were conducted through videoconferencing and the Internet (asynchronous chat). (Table 5 continues on next page)
170
(Continuation of Table 5) Theme
Sample Data
Evolving structure
Documentation: Phase I (Three Member Colleges): (1) Academic Team of Academic Deans and Online Faculty to address academic concerns/initiatives. (2) Unsanctioned teams emerge: Service Deans, Registrars, and technical staff meet ad hoc to address process and technology. Deans, Registrars, and Schedulers meet ad hoc to address seamless scheduling. Phase II (Added Fourth Member College: (1) Board (Chief Academic and Finance Officers, lead online faculty) to address planning and finance. (2) Process Team (Academic and Student Service Deans and Online Faculty from former Academic and ad hoc teams) to address implementation of core processes. (3) Ad Hoc Teams: Ad Hoc Scheduling Team continued to meet. New Ad Hoc Teams started: Support Center management team and department team; management teams for special partnered programs (i.e., Online College in the High School/OCHS; Academic Innovations/Minnesota Online staff). Ad Hoc Project Teams (i.e., marketing, international students, PSEO, credit transfer, and technology/portal) started/finished projects and disbanded. Phase III (Redesigned for growth): (1) Joint Council of Presidents to address vision, strategy, finance, policy matters. (2) Business Commission (Chief Academic and Financial Officers) to address planning. (3) Chief Academic Officers/Provosts to address the coordination of academic systems. (4) Chief Financial Officers to address the coordination of financial systems. (5) Operations Team (Process Team, faculty from Board) to coordinate implementation. (6) Schedule Planning Team (2 Academic Deans/Delegates from each college) to forecast course demand and coordinate scheduling. (7) Web Registration Team (Registrars, DARS) to implement course information for create schedule, course equivalency, degree audit information. (8) Ad Hoc Teams: Support Center department teams, OCHS management team, and Academic Innovations/Minnesota Online staff were active. A Calendar Project Team was commissioned when the need to better align calendars emerged. Phase III (Redesigned for growth): Interviews: Participants referenced former and current groups in discussions. Open meetings: Participants reviewed the areas designated for current groups in the prototype for a proposed member portal (Member Network) but did not suggest any changes to the spaces designated for the various groups.
Represe nt by designee
Documentation: Memberships to consortium groups were fulfilled through appointments made by officials from participating colleges, and/or through invitations extended to individuals from communities of interest within the colleges, and/or from invitations extended from college officials to partnering agencies. Members of groups: (a) Served as representatives of a specific demographic; (b) consulted with stakeholders; (c) communicated information to colleagues not attending meetings. Groups governing and operating the consortium varied in size. The largest groups were the scheduling team (.23 N) and special project teams (.23 N). Somewhat smaller in size were the standing process/operations team (.20 N) and board/policy groups (.16 N). Comprised of fewer practitioners were groups leading special initiatives: Technology/portal (.11 N) and Online College in the High School (.11 N). Smallest in number was the Minnesota Online/Academic Innovations coordinating team (.07 N) comprised of members located at the system office and the support center. (Table 5 continues on next page)
171
(Continuation of Table 5) Theme
Sample Data
Represent by designee (cont.)
Represented in the groups of varying sizes were employees from the participating colleges (i.e., faculty, staff, administration from member colleges, consortium administration), staff working at the consortium office/support center, and other individuals who were appointed by agencies the colleges had invited to participate in the consortium affairs (i.e., K-12, High School Tech Prep consortia, area universities, and staff from the offices of Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, Minnesota Online, and Academic Innovations). In the course of the study (9 months) every team experienced some changeover in members, which was caused by changes that colleges made in their internal assignments and lead them to appointing different individuals to consortium teams. The departure of college personnel due to retirements and to accepting employment elsewhere affected the membership of teams, also. Interviews: Participants discussed their appointments to various groups. Open meetings: Participants responded favorably to the directory of personnel that included a display of appointments and terms
Capable of creating and managing tacit knowledge
Documentation: Each group was expected to execute governance or operational responsibilities – (a) system planning, or (b) service deployment, or (c) both system planning and service deployment. Board responsibilities included: (a) Definition of the consortium domain; (b) design of the business system, including the overarching framework of member responsibilities and relationship of members to each other, to the membership, and to the consortium office; (c) development of a financial plan and corresponding systems; (d) commissioning of other standing groups (e.g., Process Team); and (e) monitoring of the overall system performance. Documents showed that the other standing groups fulfilled roles more similar to that of choreographer and/or performer. Process Team responsibilities included: (a) Choreograph operational activities that involved staff located at campuses, at other agencies, and at the consortium office/online support center; (b) document processes and procedures that addressed certain aspects of creating an online college environment and experience for students (e.g., schedule development process, course term scheduling procedure, student communications; and (c) integrate information on operational topics within the communication and training systems of member colleges. The department team from the Online Support Center was expected to perform certain functions at certain times and in certain ways, all of which were outlined in the processes and procedures provided by the groups that composed the choreography Interviews: Participants discussed the need for their appointed members and administrators to communicate regarding formalized processes, supporting information, and changes under discussion and those made. E.g., “I am not the person going to meetings…not saying I want to or need to go, but I need to know what is under consideration and what has been decided so I can better serve students” (#31).Open meetings: Participants discussed the purpose of the community- and relationship-building features that were embedded in the proposed member portal (Member Network). (End of Table 5)
172
Faculty, Deans, Directors, and vendors were primary customers of technology/services and communications/marketing staff. College administration, Minnesota Online administration, and professional organizations were primary customers of the Support Center staff working in interface and planning.
The archive named Sys Doc contained consortium processes, procedures, and forms that had been developed by the Process/Operations Team. Presidents, Chief Academic Officers/Provosts, Deans, and staff represented their colleges in the various consortium groups. Included in the structure were groups commissioned for varying purposes. To envision, strategize, authorize, and allocate costs and revenues was the role of the Joint Council of Presidents. To design, develop, and monitor primary systems and commission other work groups was the role of the Business Commission, Chief Academic Officers, and Chief Financial Officers. To deploy and implement operations was the role of the Process/Operations Team and other specially commissioned groups.
Interview participants commented on the membership of teams, reflected on how variances in college structures and positions varied impacted the composition of consortium teams.
173
Interview participants indicated that while groups had a formal membership, they ran not by quorums but by those willing to show up for meetings and engage in discussions.
5. Oriented to groups: The consortium appeared to be oriented to group planning and decision-making. Participatory planning and decision-making were stipulated in the founding agreement. The governance system and consortium office/support center organizational charts implied the agreement was implemented in practice. The archive named Sys Doc contained group charters, member rosters, meeting agendas, and notes. Formally adopted processes, procedures, and forms contained the name of the authoring and approving groups. 6. Technological: The consortium appeared to depend primarily on electronic communications. The archive of meeting agendas/notes and website suggested numerous electronic communication tools were available and used regularly. Named in the archive, by participants in interviews, and referenced in the open meetings were: email, interactive video, teleconferencing, telephone, voicemail, live chat, fax, ask a question, and online meeting software. 7. Responsive structuring: Consortium Presidents used changing priorities, emerging needs, and increased experience to inform ongoing structural improvements.
174
The strategic leadership of the consortium originally placed with an Academic Team (Deans, Faculty) had transitioned to a Board (Chief Academic Officers, Chief Financial Officers, Faculty) and most recently to a Joint Council of Presidents, a Business Commission, Chief Academic Officer Group, and Chief Finance Officer Group. The operational leadership of the consortium originally placed with ad hoc groups had transitioned to a Process Team and most recently an Operations Team that was supplemented with management teams established to operate special programs (e.g., Online College in the High School). Ad hoc project teams were initially and recently used to address selected challenges and problems. Upon completion of their assigned work, the groups disbanded. 8. Participation by appointment: Appointments to standing groups were made by college officials, and rosters of project teams were compiled from communities of interest who responded to an open invitation issued on behalf of college officials. The archive of meeting notes/agendas showed that appointments to groups were made by college officials or their designees. An analysis of the appointed participants showed that while groups varied in size, for the most part all agencies, the four departments, and the five job types were member of and participating in groups. Field notes documented the changes in membership that occurred in the course of the study. The archive of meeting notes/agendas showed that when the availability of appointed individuals changed, college official appointed a replacement.
175
9. Tacit knowledge capacity: Consortium group members were aware of the tacit knowledge that was gained in the process of working together. The archive of meeting notes/agendas and other documents depicted the charges of the various groups and their respective roles in generating and managing tacit knowledge. During interviews, several individuals who were members of groups acknowledged their responsibilities for communicating discussions and decisions to their peers. Several others commented on how attending meetings and becoming involved in the group work had helped them come to understand the consortium operation. Indications of a Virtual Community of Practice Data from the documentation review, personal interviews, and open meetings were assessed and compiled in tables addressing elements requisite to viable communities of practice (i.e., domain, community, practice, capabilities, representation/artifacts, and spaces/places. Domain. Sample data collected in the review of documentation (Table 6) and from interview transcripts (Table 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13) were summarized. Found in Table 7 are data on the factors contributing to mission fulfillment, and the philanthropic, business, and innovation benefits members experienced. In Table 8 are data pertaining to the process of collaboration (e.g., problem-solving, member centricity, trustworthiness, risk-taking, a solutions-focus, and tolerance for change). Presented in Table 9 are data pertaining to the responsibilities of governance (e.g., vision and direction, member relations, encouragement of innovation and responsiveness). Provided in Table 10 are data on factors contributing to consortium member relations (e.g., positive pre-existing 176
relations, framework for participation, sincerity demonstrated in action, anticipation of probable issues, and well-written contracts). Found in Table 11 are data pertaining to the consortium business model (e.g., progressive successfulness, assurance of mutual benefits, and responsiveness to shared interests, future-focused business planning and analogous financial planning). Found in Table 12 are data that describe the consortium curriculum strategy (e.g., unified commitment to meeting student needs, an agreed upon approach, assurances of academic rigor, and a supportive financial model). Located in Table 13 are data on positioning of the consortium within the online educational practice (e.g., track record, state system, statewide online education initiative and new opportunities). Community. Sample data collected in the review of documentation (Table 14) and from interview transcripts (Table 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19) were summarized. Contained in the data were references to people participating in the consortium community (i.e., participants, leadership, teams, external influences and key players). Contained in Table 15 and 16 are data pertaining to participants and the leadership. Summarized in Table 17 are data pertaining to administrative positions involved in the consortium. In Table 18 are data on the roles of staff located at campuses. Presented in Table 19 are data on the roles of staff located at the support center. Also noted in the data collection were inferences on the roles of faculty in coordinating programs, performing academic advising, and teaching online courses were implied in the discussions of other roles in the community (#14, #18, #21, #25, #29, #32, and #45). “Success is dependent on members but also on others,” stated a participant (#15). State staff from the Minnesota Online office, Information Technology Services, and staff from agencies involved in the Online College 177
in the High School program, and proctors for students at high school sites were less intensely involved in daily operations but were acknowledged for their influence on the consortium (#27, #33, and #34). Additionally, a few participants questioned whether the consortium should reach out to potential new members: custom training personnel from member colleges (#04), key community contacts (#18), and external entities pertinent to special initiatives (#28). Practice. Presented in Table 20 are pertinent sample data that were located in the documentation review. Found in Table 21 are sample data from interview transcripts that addressed the consortium practice of seamlessness (i.e., learning-and student-centered design; compatibility with state system; detailed planning; alignment in key areas; designated areas of responsibility and ongoing training; problem-centered and solutionsfocused culture; and continuous improvement). Capabilities. Presented in Table 22 are sample data that were located in the documentation review. Found in Table 23 are sample data from interview transcripts that addressed student focus, forums, simplification, facilitation, engagement, participation, ownership, communication, change and problem-solving capacities of the consortium. Representations/Artifacts. Presented in Table 24 are sample data that were located in the review of documentation. Found in Table 25 are sample data from interview transcripts that addressed the representations and artifacts associated with the work of the consortium (i.e., knowledge management plan; modeling and presentation style; content – i.e., plans, processes, tools, data, notes; repository format).
178
Spaces/Places. Presented in Table 26 are sample data that were located in the review of documentation. Found in Table 27 are sample data from interview transcripts that addressed the spaces and places involved in the doing consortium work. Findings: Evidence of a virtual community of practice. 1. Consortium Domain: (See Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.) Purpose: (See Table 7.) Providing member services requisite for unifying an online delivery mechanism comprised of the varying resources of members individually and at-large was identified as a primary responsibility of the consortium. Described in the scope were coordinating planning and also delivering some services directly to visitors and prospective and current students. Mission: (See Table 7.) The explicitly stated mission of the consortium was to provide a satisfying, effective, and affordable online college experience. Associated by participants with fulfillment of the consortium mission were: Purpose-driven action; data-based evaluation of accomplishment; commitment to continuous improvement; principled, goal-driven, and funded operations; and an appreciation for organically developed structures and a diverse membership. Benefits (See Table 7.) Identified benefits to members included enhanced support for students, increased institutional capacity for delivering online education and services, and increased opportunities for innovation. 179
Enactment of collaboration: (See Table 8.) As described, collaborating involved a member centric culture, a sense of trust, a commitment to problemsolving, a solutions focus, and a tolerance for change. Governance: (See Table 9.) The described responsibilities of government included: Providing vision and direction; fostering positive relations among members; encouraging innovation; and responding to threats, challenges, and opportunities. Member relations: (See Table 10.) Relations between members were fostered by a framework for participation, positive pre-existing relations, the demonstration of sincerity in actions, anticipation of probable issues, and well-written contracts.
Business model: (See Table 11.) The incumbent business model was described as flexible, but not perfected. As described, incumbent consortium business model aspired to: Progressively increased successfulness; assuring mutual benefits; responding to shared interests; fostering future-focused business planning; and developing analogous financial plans.
180
Table 6 Documentation Review: Domain Observation
Sample Data
Founding documents indicate the domain of the consortium community is the provision of distance services to member colleges.
“The purpose of this agreement is to establish distance services to implement specific responsibilities as outlined in this agreement and as further specific in the Handbook for Shared Distance Services” (Distance Minnesota Intra-Agency Agreement, 2004). The domain is “…a one stop network composed of Shared Distance and college level services” that requires committing to “seamlessness” (Distance Minnesota Essential Commitments, 2004). The overview of the system depicts a “plan-do-check-act” approach to continue quality improvement within the domain (Distance Minnesota System Map, n.d.).
Meeting notes and materials suggest that the domain includes coordinating, planning, and delivering distance education and services.
Board agendas/notes: strategic planning, financial planning, budgeting and staffing, delegation (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). Process Team agendas/notes: process design, operational planning and deployment, operational problem solving (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). Scheduling Team agendas/notes: course-term scheduling, seat distribution management, registration issues (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). From Support Center Department Management agendas/notes: planning, deployment, assessment, and improvement of centralized services (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). From specially commissioned projects: Marketing Project, International Student process, PSEO process, Credit transfer process, Portal Project, Online College in the High School (Distance Minnesota, n.d.).
The consortium website portrays the domain as the needs, interests, and experiences of visitors and prospective and current students.
About Us: “Choose Distance Minnesota for a satisfying, effective, and affordable online education experience” (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). Home page contains links to programs, admissions, and orientation for prospects and information for students (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). Home page links readers to multiple help-oriented “channels” including “Ask a Question”, “Live Chat”, and “Call” (Distance Minnesota, n.d.).
181
Table 7 Interviews: Mission, Contributors, and Benefits Theme
Sample Data
Mission
“The consortium was commissioned to unify or coordinate a delivery mechanism” (#11).
Contributors
“Understanding why togetherness is needed helps everyone” (#19). Purpose-driven action (#11, #13, #15). Data-based evaluation of accomplishment (#03, #33). Commitment to continuous improvement (#05, #15, #17, #19, #26, #28, #43, #45). Principled, goal-driven, and funded operations (#03, #19, #38, #43, #44). Appreciation for organically developed structures and the diversity of the membership (#17, #26, #28, #38, #43, #45).
Benefits to students (philanthropy)
Institutional commitment: “Working together is good for students” (#10). “Collaboration is vital to students. If we are not cooperating they are going to lose in the end” (#01). Responding to “special student needs” is a must (#31). “…the distance student needs to feel part of the college” (#05). “Without the consortium we would be limited on the number of courses students could take from our college…Offering courses through the consortium allows students to take these courses without being required to apply at each college” (#41). Access: “Many are starting to see the process puts students in charge and students decide” (#13). “(The consortium) gives learners increased opportunity” (#35). “The consortium creates a great opportunity for students, especially older student miles away or those tied to a job or responsibilities at home” (#06). “They tell me every day over and over, distance is perfect for me…no babysitter needed, no travel, don’t have to quit my job, can attend on my own time” (#48). Satisfaction: “Try to put yourself in the student’s place” (#35). “You need ways to assure the student will not be sent everywhere, but will have their needs met right away” (#43). Learning: “(We)…take and up an out approach, (and strive to) give…the ultimate compliment…you are ready for the next step” (#26). Reported also were signs that the consortium model was working: grades earned, repeat registrations, and increased numbers of new participants (#05, #37, and #45).
Advancement opportunities (innovation)
“To work better and smoother is the ultimate goal of education…distance education is not a flash in the pan” (#05). “The model reveres continuous improvement and helps us avert automatically applying solutions from a traditional paradigm…there is growing acknowledgement that an ‘outside the box’ approach like this is something that will benefit all institutions” (#44). (Table 7 continues on next page)
182
(Continuation of Table 7) Theme
Sample Data
Institutional capacity (business)
Market expansion: The consortium could assist members with expanding the availability and the marketability of online programs and courses (#03, #08, #10, #13, #28, #36, #41, and #45). “Information the consortium shares about courses promotes access” (#08). Extended service/support (#06, #08, #13, #16, #28, #18, #19, #36, #41, #45, #47): “Most attractive are consortia that offer service; add depth to the college; lack hassle; contribute to economy of scale; and provide access to new/better technology” (#24); “(Attractive to us is) the pool offered by the consortium – ability to have opportunities to take a bigger variety of courses, and the number of learners our courses reach” (#45). Expanded academic portfolio: “Positives include outcomes achieved, staffing, access provided for students, use of technology…student retention and success show the delivery is working for students…expanded curriculum (especially important for new AA degrees at smaller campuses) and bigger variety of courses for electives” (#16). “When colleges share in online courses, all of their students are exposed to a wider variety of courses and they have a lot more options” (#47). “Together the 4 colleges offer more courses to students than they can offer alone” (#06). Increased affordability: “The consortium is useful to smaller entities in that it is positioned to add value to things where small campuses do not have enough resources” (#28). “Even the big colleges would be hard pressed to provide the access and level of services without the partnership…Together we have accomplished some things we could not have done alone” (#45). More partners to share in funding operations: “Collaboration between the state initiative (Minnesota Online) and the consortium has moved both forward to extend hours of support, leverage personnel, build the knowledge base…reduce costs” (#13). “Having online support staff at a central location is helpful. It would be difficult if not impossible to get the same amount of work done if staff were located at a campus or across many campuses” (#18). (End of Table 7)
183
Table 8 Interviews: Collaborating Theme
Sample Data
Commitment to problem-solving
“A ‘ripe environment’, a necessary ingredient to partnering or collaborating of any kind, would involve agreeing on what the problem is and acknowledging that the solution to a problem cannot be solved alone” (#19).
Member-centric culture
Acknowledging, respecting, and responding to the interests of members (#23, #28). Demonstrating added value (#08, #13, #15, #19, #28, #34, and #44).
Sense of trust
Allowing enough time for trust to be fostered (#08, #13, and #19). Communicating regularly (#18, #44). Creating and sustaining positive relationships (#08, #17). Creating a common understanding (#08, #13, #18, #36, #38, #44). We surely need to ask, ‘Is this a real partnership?’…Sometimes under the guise of partnerships, benefits are overextended to one entity at the expense of the other…We use the word partnership too loosely sometimes, If the analogy is one spouse does all the work and makes all the money while the other sits on the couch all day and spends the money, how does that make for a good marriage? (#28).
Risk-taking
“Being in a consortium is an act of professional courage. You learn quickly or eventually, that you have to give up something to get something more…Sometimes we can’t see the trees for the forest. We get stuck in what we know” (#44). “… giving up some control is a requirement” (#15). Supporting individuals as they adjust their work to the collaborative context (#41, #44).
Solutions-focused
“Issues surrounding the online consortium are not insurmountable” (#15). Leveraging opportunities for working together (#13, #34).
Tolerance for change
Breaking down institutional and departmental boundaries (#05, #44).
184
Table 9 Interviews: Governance Responsibilities Theme
Sample Data
Vision and direction
“Providing direction” (#12, #13, #17) and “…developing sharing, building commonality, shaping the vision for moving forward” (#13). “To some extent, all attendees (board members) were looking for a ‘silver bullet’ for their colleges and were expecting the consortium to be part of the answer to issues of effective education, finance and fiscal stability, and reputation” (#28).
Member relations
“We made a big list upfront and as much as possible worked things out in advance” (#43). Coordinating policy (#09, #24, #29, and #45). Settling disputes (#15, #28), and fostering compliance and redirecting non-compliance (#09, #12, #15, #18, #42, #43). “Independence has created problems. Colleges are free to do their own thing. There are no teeth behind the rules; opting out is easy” (#12). Demonstrate without departure, a unilateral commitment to creating win-win solutions that would benefit all members: In the instances where things started not to hold together and were not bound by a specific policy, trust was tested. (If ever) actions are taken at the expense of one member or when other members group up against any one member, trust will be severely tested…While having trust is needed, keeping it is essential (#45).
Innovation
Promoting risk-taking (#42). “I am excited about the influence the consortium could have at the campus level” (#42). “Early decision-making was more ad hoc. Now there are teams assigned to functions although there is still some ‘top down’ (board directives)…The consortium seems better organized now…we are all more experienced…there has been continued improvements…should continue into the foreseeable future”( #17)
Threats, challenges, opportunities
Personally engaging in governance (e.g., policymaking, dispute resolution) required managing other work, overcoming the complexities of scheduling, finding time to travel to a central site to meet “in person” (#24, #29, and #43). “Relations (or lack thereof) make moving forward difficult. When groups come together once a month it feels like total strangers are assembling to say how cooperating should occur” (#12). “There is a gap between what they say and reality…They come to the table, seem to agree something is a good idea, and the issue or conviction becomes a trickle in the river of their regular work, and they forget (#09). “The problem is the more removed something is from you, the less you include it in your sphere of concern…out of sight, out of mind” (#44). “The politics get messed up easily…people are so worried about themselves or their colleges that they forget we are about students” (#33).
185
Table 10 Interviews: Member Relations Theme
Sample Data:
Pre-existing relations
“Experience tells us that starting a consortium probably goes better if there is already some kind of relationship in place” (#45).
Well-written contracts
Contracts and agreements help with “…knowing going in the expectations of the consortium and individual colleges” (#11). Without some pre-existing relationship, members will need to commit wholeheartedly on blind faith or a rock solid contract. A problem with counting on a contract to predicate things is you can’t have thought it all out ahead of time (#45).
Values in action
Assurances that both common and differing needs of members would be addressed to the extent possible (#38). Demonstration and communication of the benefits of otherwise “painful compromise” (#44).
Framework for participation
A pre-established “framework for participation” (#44). “Consistency in participation” (#37). Sense of immediacy – deal with emerging issues (#11). An expectation that member colleges would “come to the table and state goals they want to accomplish through the partnership” (#42). “Our experience pushes people to question: How do we do business as a consortium and as an independent institution? How does the partnership fit with student services? How do we define quality in a consortium setting? How does being successful in these areas as a consortium partnership contribute to the successfulness of our institution?” (#44). While tensions between founding members and new participants (#04, #11, #14), between larger and smaller colleges (#04, #45), between those leading new initiatives and those joining later (#33, #49) were described in the commentaries, also expressed was appreciation of the opportunities for “more dialog” that were introduced as tension mounted and changes emerged (#11). Some things are “my college’s to figure out” (#02).
Anticipation of probable issues
New members should “prepare for some interesting dynamics” (#49). Tenured members should anticipate that with the introduction of every new member the consortium establishment will be changed and that tensions will rise for at least a period of time (#11, #14, #25, #33, and #34). Respect for differing purposes of membership (#04). Concerns about effects of consortium branding and on the unique identities of members (#13, #26). Possible need to redefine academic integrity in context of the consortium (#11). Challenge of fostering relationships while also establishing a culture that is accepting of candid dialog and on occasion, agreeing to disagree (#37, #44). Strains caused by the effects of financial formula changes or other epic changes (#45). Pressured mounting from sharing power between members (#44). Need common ground with differing policies, procedures, and interpretations (#49). New members should “prepare for some interesting dynamics” (#49), and tenured members should anticipate that with the introduction of every new member the consortium establishment will be changed and that tensions will rise for at least a period of time (#11, #14, #25, #33, and #34). Respect for differing purposes of membership (#04). Concerns about the effects of consortium branding and on the unique identities of members (#13, #26). Possible need to redefine academic integrity in the context of the consortium (#11). Challenge of fostering relationships while also establishing a culture that is accepting of candid dialog and on occasion, agreeing to disagree (#37, #44). Strains caused by the effects of financial formula changes or other epic changes (#45). Pressured mounting from sharing power between members (#44). Increased need to find common ground among differing policies, procedures, and interpretations (#49).
Anticipation of probable issues (cont.)
186
Table 11 Interviews: Consortium Business Model Theme
Sample Data
Progressively increased successfulness
Commentaries pointed out that the consortium membership was enjoying the success of strong enrollment, rising revenues, and respectable satisfaction, completion, and graduation rates.
Assurance of mutual benefits
A willingness to monitor and adjust the business model so all members could benefit adequately had helped the consortium survive its infancy (#04, #12, #13, #23, #43, #45). “A consortium that builds the coffers of one at the expense of any one member will not last” (#45). “The region has demonstrated flexibility” (#03).
Responsive to shared interests
In the comments appeared concern for a business model that encouraged colleges to jointly “analyze and share schedules” (#43) to thereby prevent financial inefficiencies. Emphasis on expectation that online course efficiencies and participation in online degree programs would increase steadily. Emphasis on reaching an extended market (#04, #12, #15).
Future-focused business planning
Comments suggested that a viable business model should not rely on what was or is, but must be built on what is desired and envisioned as possible. E.g., “The business model should respond to some important questions” “Where are you going? Who are your customers?” (#04). Questions were raised about whether the desired market was current students, distant students, college graduates, or incumbent workers retraining for a new career or an advanced skill, and about the extent to which campus students should be allowed to access online courses.
Analogous financial plans
Commentaries also addressed the financial plan supporting the business plan. E.g., “It is important to address the whole component of finance, including investment required, expectations, split of excess revenues and sharing of deficits, reinvestment, etc.” (#23). Lacking a well-focused business plan, a sound financial plan could not be established, and “staffing commitments” (#12) and “costs” (#13) and investments in “marketing” (#34) that were requisite for reaching an extended market were set aside: E.g., “It is too easy to cut back the consortium and keep only the basics – especially when finances are tight like they are now. We need a method to reallocate revenue so what is available can be put into growth of our future rather than to subsidize outdated approaches” (#04).
187
Curriculum strategy: (See Table 12.) As described, the consortium curriculum strategy stemmed from a unified commitment to meeting student needs and emphasized an agreed upon approach whereby seats in online courses were shared among students from all member colleges. The availability of a supportive financial model was associated also with successfulness of the curriculum strategy. Mentioned also were assurances academic rigor was grounded in the two state system requirements (online program approval process, faculty credentialing/licensing criteria) and in the regional institutional accreditation required for membership eligibility.
Current and future positioning: (See Table 13.) Participants acknowledged the successfulness and value of the consortium, and offered ideas on future positioning of the entity. Recommended was aligning with the strategic priorities of the state system, clarifying the relationship between the consortium and the state online initiative (Minnesota Online), and exploring untapped opportunities (i.e., reaching an extended market; engaging other institutions and agencies; formalizing a relationship with public universities; and exploring with the state system how the regional consortium model might be leveraged statewide).
188
Table 12 Interviews: Consortium Curriculum Strategy Theme
Sample Data
Agreed upon approach
Strategy focused on permitting courses taught by one member to be listed on the schedules of other members, and to thereby open seats in courses to qualified students from across the four colleges. Emphasis on learning first and the need for focusing on what would be most valued within a student’s educational career: E.g.: “Focus on academics first, and then deal with the constraints of software, technology, and time” (#11). “Pick something with long-lasting value” (#27).
Assurances of academic rigor
The quality assurances for courses exchanged among members included: (a) Members being regionally accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (2006); (b) every degree offered online was subjected to a state approval and a special accreditation process; (c) every faculty member at every college was required to meet the credentialing criteria that were established for faculty statewide.
Support from cost and revenue sharing model
The current model encourages members to maximize seats available, to avoid putting up courses where there is not adequate demand…as a result competition for teaching courses is reduced and energies are directed toward using resources/seats more wisely so student needs are met – as efficiently as possible (#43).
Unified by commitment to meeting student needs
E.g., Problems crop up when not enough courses are available. Students start taking courses elsewhere and have to deal with transfer concerns. Well planned out programs provide the ability to see course offerings at least a year in advance (and display) a schedule that demonstrates that 50% of the program is available every term (#25). Commitment to planning course term schedules a year in advance. Commitment to providing a high volume of courses so students could plan ahead and could be assured varying completion options would be available well into the future.
189
Table 13 Interviews: Positioning the Consortium Theme
Sample Data
Track record
“The consortium has demonstrated it can work even with structural, cultural, and political constraints…Today the consortium is relatively cutting edge despite the initial trepidation and skepticism” (#44). “The program seems to fit the ‘wave of the future’” (#27). The consortium worked in tandem with the state initiative (Minnesota Online) to extend services and hours (#13, #19), and thereby was credited for contributing to the development of the statewide initiative by serving as a test case (#36) and supporting the state board vision – “more quality, more efficient, more effective services” (#13).
Strategic priorities of the state system
“Linkages to the state system office capabilities may affect greatly how well a consortium can perform” (#23). “We don’t mind taking risks (e.g., seamless registration pilot), but we expect there will be a repair mechanism. For example, the current consortium is dependent on information technology system provided from the state offices. The ability of the state office to provide service and to respond quickly to breakdowns affects the programs of the consortium and affects student satisfaction” (#15).
Relation with Minnesota Online
“Initially there were questions about how the two could fit together, and concern those layers (region consortium, state) would muddle things” (#19). “I don’t know the intended relationship between our consortium (Distance Minnesota) and the state system (Minnesota State Colleges and Universities)” (#24). “What is the role of consortia in the state? How are the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system, Minnesota Online, the Distance Minnesota consortium, and colleges supposed to relate? Should there be just Minnesota State Colleges and Universities and not the other layers?” (#03). “Is Minnesota Online able to do some things that the consortium used to do?” (#02). “I appreciate the state office support more than I am frustrated by it. There appears to be a desire to do the right things on nearly everybody’s part” (#24).
Untapped options
Drawing much attention in the comments about the future of the consortium was developing systems to reach an extended marketplace - e.g., residents of the USA and neighboring countries, international students worldwide, active duty military personnel, citizens of third world countries, internationally based employers with Minnesota ties, and incumbent workers and students concurrently enrolled in high schools in the region (#14, #23, #27, #28, #45). Also proposed was extending the consortium relationship to engage other institutions and agencies. E.g.: “To me a partnership is about the innovation one brings or has by having access to others…it doesn’t mean there should be a monopoly” (#28); “When things go worldwide, we can’t have so much control so being more open now is good practice…There is a need to try new things or to try doing things differently and there is a need to figure out how to take theory into practice…” (#14). Formalizing relationships with public universities to further enhance curriculum development and sharing, and to promote recruitment/retention was recommended also, as was exploring whether the Arrowhead University Consortium model or modification thereof might be informative to advancing the consortium (#22). Stepping up to contribute in further developing the state system and investigating the possibility of transitioning the consortium from a regional to a state model were suggested frequently (#03, #09, #13, #14, #19, #22, #23, #24, #25, #27, #29, #36, #42). Some participants indicated they were waiting with enthusiasm for a point when the consortium would migrate into the state system: E.g., “I wish there wasn’t a consortium; I wish consortium services were available to the whole state” (#03). Others suggested the consortium might be replicated and thereby change the face of the state system: E.g., “There is a need to look at consortium replication – If there were other regional consortia around the state that would make us stronger, not weaker” (#19).
190
2. Community: (See Table 14.)
Personal qualities: (See Table 15.) Largely attributed to the consortium effectiveness by participants were the quality of the people involved and their capabilities for learning, taking risks, communicating, staying engaged, being attentive and positive, and their abilities to change and redirect inappropriate behavior.
Leadership: (See Table 16.) As described, leadership was influential on the consortium. In discussions, the continuity of leadership was associated with the stability and vitality of the consortium. Collaborative leadership qualities were described as needed more than competitive leadership qualities. The critiques on leadership by practitioner-participants (some of whom were leaders themselves) identified both strengths and challenges. Included in the strengths were the quality of the people involved, the excellence of their thinking, and their professional stature within the state system. Notably challenging to the leadership were maintaining a visionary rather than operational focus, practicing collective risk-taking, functioning collaboratively, and staying the strategic course as decisions were driven into practice.
191
Table 14 Documentation Review: Community Observation
Sample Data
Founding documents show colleges are community members.
“This intra-agency agreement is entered into among… [List of member colleges] (Distance Minnesota Intra-Agency Agreement, 2004). Amendment lists: Alexandria Technical College, Minnesota State Community & Technical College, Northland Community & Technical College, Northwest Technical College (Distance Minnesota Intra-Agency Agreement, 2004). College responsibilities are outlined (Distance Minnesota Essential Commitments, 2004).
Meeting notes and materials name the groups involved in governing and operating the consortium and their respective members from colleges, the consortium office, and partner agencies.
Board, Process Team, Scheduling Team, Online Support Center, special project teams (e.g., marketing, international, PSEO, credit transfer, portal), and special programs (Online College in the High School) are acknowledge in Sys Doc Meeting and Notes (Distance Minnesota website, n.d.). Rosters in Sys Doc Meeting and Notes show groups have members from each college and from the consortium office or online support center (Distance Minnesota website, n.d.). Rosters in Sys Doc Meeting and Notes include staff from K-12, High School Tech Prep consortia, area universities, and the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities offices of Minnesota Online and Academic Innovations (Distance Minnesota website, n.d.).
The website lists member colleges, the Distance Minnesota consortium office, the Minnesota Online Support Center, and the names of key contacts at campuses and the support center.
Member college names and links to the corresponding college websites are shown on each web page (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). The Contact Us tab displays the consortium information (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). Program home pages display contact information for lead faculty and academic advisors (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). The Meet Our Staff link under the About Us tab displays contact information for service agents for Minnesota Online (Distance Minnesota, n.d.).
192
Table 15 Interviews: Personal Characteristics Suited to the Consortium Setting Theme
Sample Data
Learning-oriented risk-taker
“When I first heard of the consortium I thought it was off the wall…as I learned more and began to think, it was doable. My experience showed me the success of the consortium is dependent on people holding it together, learning along the way, and working through problems as they arise” (#37). “The consortium needs people that (1) dare to take risks, (2) will run with what they know while finding the edge, and (3) communicate when more information is needed” (#23). “People with a ‘can do’ attitude are needed” (#49).
Effective communicator
“Making success requires a tremendous amount of communication” (#27). “Understanding everyone wants to be helpful and keeping open communication channels is important” (#14).
Attentive and positive
“There is a need for everyone to ‘stay alert’ so if one person overlooks something others may notice or when a person is caught off guard, others can jump in and help” (#14). “There is some evidence that virtual consortia fail on the basis of personalities” (#19). “Having a compatible mix of personalities serving on the program planning/management group has been invaluable. Nobody is negative. They bend over backwards to make things work” (#27). “Personalities make a difference. We have a wonderful group to work within our consortium” (#41). “Everyone is really great staff to staff. You can really tell why people are in this” (#33).
Able to change and to redirect inappropriate behavior
“If you can’t handle change, you can’t work in distance” (#48). “When we couch our bad behavior in turf protection, we aren’t helping the consortium or the students it is intended to service…or even the institutions it is commissioned to help” (#44).
193
Table 16 Interviews: Consortium Leadership Qualities Theme
Sample Data
Impact of leadership
“Leadership is critical” (#23). “The most basic ingredient to a successful consortium is the integrity of the leadership involved” (#15). “Leadership makes a difference. Who the leaders are, how they forge ahead with change, how they present their ideas to the masses matters, as does how they work together” (#42).
Leadership continuity
“Continuity in staff helps communication” (#37). “Any change in leadership creates opportunities for goals to become unclear” (#42). “When there is change at the most senior levels in a consortium, it might be natural that the organizational direction is reassessed, and reaffirmed or redirected” (#19).
Collaborative leadership qualities
“Key people at institutions need to be on board, starting with administrators who are willing to support the collaborative process, which will involve a broad range of players” (#41). “They need to take part, to be supportive, to make decisions that establish high level structures, and to explain these decisions to their campuses” (#43). “…agree to collaborate and commit to making it work” (#13). “…on board” (#43). “…take a vision and run with it…take risks, work out the kinks…” (#23). “…take part, are supportive, and who make and explain decisions that establish high level structures and make expectations clear so staff may adjust accordingly” (#43). “…take a no excuses approach and demonstrate the ability to make hard decisions” (#15). “…work on reducing contradictions…(to) establish and define more clearly what we do – the relationships of member to member, member to shared services, member to all, individuals to peers, players at all levels to each other” (#44).
Leadership strengths
“I think we have the right people involved (admin)” (#47). “We have…good thinkers…opportunity and responsibility to take a lead role in the state system” (#23). “We have excellent thinkers at the table from institutions that are assertive” (#15).
Leadership challenges
Challenging to the leadership was staying visionary (versus succumbing to operational issues of the day) and being assertive enough to the risks needed to capitalize on opportunities (#28). “The group has not grown into functioning as a collaborative…as one unit” (#12). “…strong leaders working in opposition” (#42). “Saying those who attend get to choose is easy, but when a Dean or CAO can override decisions or some attendees opt out by saying something is a CAO issue, decisions cannot be made or upheld” (#09).
Leadership strengths
“I think we have the right people involved (admin)” (#47). “We have…good thinkers…opportunity and responsibility to take a lead role in the state system” (#23). “We have excellent thinkers at the table from institutions that are assertive” (#15).
Leadership challenges
Challenging to the leadership was staying visionary (versus succumbing to operational issues of the day) and being assertive enough to the risks needed to capitalize on opportunities (#28). “The group has not grown into functioning as a collaborative…as one unit” (#12). “…strong leaders working in opposition” (#42). “Saying those who attend get to choose is easy, but when a Dean or CAO can override decisions or some attendees opt out by saying something is a CAO issue, decisions cannot be made or upheld” (#09).
194
Administration: (See Table 17.) Descriptions of the community identified key administrative players (i.e., Presidents, Chief Academic Officers and Provosts, Academic Deans, and consortium administrators). The roles described for Presidents included setting direction, resolving policies that impeded working together, financing the system, and assessing system performance. Encompassed in the roles described for Chief Academic Officers and Provosts were communicating the needs and interests of their colleges and integrating them within the consortium plans, reinforcing the value of the work completed by individuals in varying positions, supporting the efforts of Deans in working together, and connecting the college and engaging its community with the consortium membership. The roles described for Academic Deans were operational in nature and included participating fully in consortium groups, making decisions with the input of peers from member colleges, coordinating information flows, explaining operations to their faculties and staffs, managing deliveries of learning and services. Included in the roles of consortium administrators were serving as a proactively-oriented change agent, ensuring communication, designing projects, directing energies, and brokering solutions among members.
195
Table 17 Interviews: Key Administrative Players and Their Roles in the Consortium Community Theme
Sample data
College Presidents
The roles of Presidents were referenced by numerous participants (#01, #02, #11, #15, #23, #24, #27, #28, #33, #34, #37, #42, #43, and #45). “Presidents need to be willing to do some of the work, to take the time to meet face-to-face and focus on setting the direction and on resolving polices that impede working together” (#43). “Presidents keep a pulse on the dollars and cents and on the financial ramifications of decisions “(#42). Said one President, “My role is to encourage asking, is that working? How well is that working? What could work better?”
College Chief Academic Officers and Provosts
The roles of Chief Academic Officers and Provosts were referenced by six participants (#02, #09, #11, #28, #34, and #49). Serving as a conduit for connecting the consortium with their colleges is a responsibility of these officers (#02, #09, #11, and #34). Revealing the needs and interests of their colleges and engaging each other in developing positions in common that would serve the consortium and their individual colleges is a responsibility of these officers also (#02, #09, #11, #34). “…a pressure-filled role of liaison” (#11). “…Need the buy in and expertise of faculty and Deans” (#11). “CAOs are instrumental in celebrations – they are positioned to reinforce the value of everyone’s work” (#34). “When engaged, Provosts learned more about the collaborative; were more able to lend support to their Deans; and had opportunities to introduce new ideas to the group” (#28). “(At our college) we have figured out how to connect the (consortium) communications to the college community…the Office of the Provost puts out info and collects feedback” (#49).
Academic Deans
The roles of Academic Deans were discussed by 13 participants. As described, Deans were needed to analyze operations, make decisions with the input of their peers, coordinate information flows, and explain the consortium operations to their faculties and staffs (#01, #02, #06, #07, #09, #11, #17, #23, #28, #34, #36, #45, and #48). “Deans are instrumental in participating fully (e.g., scheduling team, operations team) and in staying on top of operations” (#34). “Deans need to support each other – this is a big deal…and to learn certain skills (e.g., cost analysis) so decisions can be explained better (#36). Some felt the role of the Deans was clearly understood and appropriate (e.g., #17). “There is a lack of clarity in the role and scope of Chief Academic Officers and Deans. This bogs down decision-making. Things feel like a moving target. Saying those who attend get to choose is easy, but when a dean or CAO can override decisions or some attendees opt out by saying something is a CAO issue, decisions cannot be made or upheld” (#09).“We need a distance dean... now distance is everyone’s…out of sight…out of mind” (#01)
Consortium Administrators (System Director; Service and Technology Director)
The roles of the Consortium Administrators were mentioned by two participants. “A necessary ingredient to partnering and collaborating is…respecting things won’t happen by themselves”. (The vitality of the system depends upon)…willingness for someone, an individual or an organization, to step forward and play a change agent role…ensuring communication, projects are designed, energies are directed” (#19). “Distance staff serves as a third party to help others find neutral ground and pull together opinions and work out interpersonal communications” (#38).
196
Campus staff: (See Table 18.) Included in the descriptions of the duties of campus staff relative to the consortium roles were connecting the consortium to the college and the college to the consortium, serving as local contacts for students enrolled in online courses, assessing and resolving problems and when necessary making referrals on behalf online learners, and continuously learning and trying new things.
Support center staff: (See Table 19.) Descriptions of the roles of support center staff encompassed serving as a one-stop for prospective and current online students, providing objective advice to students, providing support to faculty directing online programs, and satisfying member college needs.
3. Practice: (See Table 20 and Table 21.) The consortium practiced seamlessness and was committed to creating an online college system from the resources of members individually and the membership at large. As described, seamlessness required synchronizing the work of a campus staff with the work of staff located at the other seven campuses and at the online support center. To this end, the consortium practice focused energies on: (a) learning and students; (b) aligning with the consortium with the state system; (c) detailed coordinated planning; (d) alignment of key areas; (e) designated areas of responsibility; (f) ongoing staff training; (g) a problem-centered and solutionsfocused culture, and (h) continuous development and improvement.
197
Table 18 Interviews: Key Roles of Campus Staff Theme
Sample data
Connect consortium to college and college to consortium
Frontline staff located at campuses plays a key role in making the consortium setting work for students (#07, #08, #09, #12, #14, #17, #29, #30, #31, #33, #34, #37, #38, #41, #42, #44, and #49). “My college has a team of people that connect the college to the consortium and the consortium to the college. The team includes someone who is passionate about online learning, someone who is administrative, someone who is service-oriented, and someone who is technical” (#38). “(The capability of campuses has)…gotten a lot better, mainly because people have embraced the fact that distance education is part of the college work and not extra work… (and they are) now looking at it as a core part of the college… (and are) more able to see and understand the incentives for working together” (#34).
Local contact Frontline staff need to gain a detailed understanding of how the system is intended to for students in work relative to advising, registration, and drop, add and withdraw (#16, #31, #33, online courses #41), books and assignments (#07), and bill paying and grade entry (#33). Help/advise campus students taking online courses: E.g., course registration functions; how to get books; drop for nonpayment matters; financial aid issues; accessing/using the online portal; accessing and navigating online courses; importance of time management and personal discipline; arranging test proctoring; online and other tutoring; getting technical help; communicating with course faculty and peers, etc ((#07, #08, #09, #12, #14, #17, #29, #30, #31, #33, #34, #37, #38, #41, #42, #44, #49). Some campuses had named a distance contact/established a distance help desk, and others were less formalized and relied on campus staff taking online courses, or staff who had formerly worked at the consortium office location, or had historically redirected campus students to call the online support center (consortium office) about any questions pertaining to their online courses (#07, #09, #16, #47). Assess issues, resolve problems, and make referrals when necessary Continuously learn and try new things
“Serve as a role model to students (pick up the phone and call)” (#34). Before and after hours and weekend help (online support center); technical help desks (college email, D2L, eFolio, ISRS); program specialists (e.g., financial aid, business office, etc).Strive to understand the system for researching and referring problems presented by students (#34).Use the agreed upon referral process to prevent students from looping back to campuses (#07, #09, #16). “There are new players to get involved. Some [personnel] are saying I need to start learning about distance now (in addition to my other responsibilities)” (#33). “…everyone is getting more educated on who is doing what” (#30). “Frontline staff needs to be willing to try new things, to ask tough questions (i.e., is this the way we do this? Did you mean for students to be affected in this way?) (#34).Use information about decisions upcoming and decisions made (#07, #16, #30, #31, #33, #37, and #42).Provide input on processes under design, read communications to learn about changes, connect with campus staff participating on the consortium teams (#07, #42). Participate in local discussions about process changes and the construction of implementation plans (#33).
198
Table 19 Interviews: Key Roles of Support Center Staff Theme
Sample data
Serve as a onestop
The role of serving as a one-stop that was designated to the online support center staff and its importance in the consortium were referenced by numerous participants (#01, #13, #15, #16, #18, #19, #21, #26, #30, #32, #33, #34, #38, #39, #42, #48). “When people ask what I do, I say my workplace is like a group of colleges in one box. I help everybody’s students with all of their needs. We are a one-stop shop for all campuses…” “Having the online support staff at a central location is helpful. It would be difficult if not impossible to get the same amount of work done if staff were located at campus or across many campuses” (#18).
Provide objective advice to students
“When students contact the center, they receive objective advice and they are made aware of specific processes” (#13). Indicating room for improvement in providing direct service existed, two individuals from one campus raised concerns about the appropriateness and the reasons why student would be looped back to campuses after being referred to the online support center (#07, #16).
Provide support to faculty directing online programs
Help faculty to feel invited to visit the center; explain the role of the faculty and the online advisor in the consortium setting; create simple ways of collecting necessary information (i.e., an abbreviated worksheet for faculty to fill out); and, keep faculty abreast of personnel changes at the center (#32).
Satisfy shared and competing needs of member colleges
“I view my work as if it were a 3-legged stool held up by me satisfying the needs and interests of (1) students, (2) member colleges, and (3) my co-workers and administrators”. “Distance Minnesota staff have the most difficult role to play…they do it extremely well even when placed in a difficult position” (#34). “Quite honestly, people working at the distance office are put in an unfair position” (#33).
199
Table 20 Documentation Review: Practice Observation
Sample Data
Founding documents indicate the work of the community is supporting students in online learning endeavors
The aim is to provide services that are experienced as seamless although delivered from multiple points using multiple channels and configured from a distributed set of resources (Distance Minnesota Essential Commitments, 2004). By design, campuses provide primary support to campus students taking online courses (Distance Minnesota Blueprint, n.d.). By design, the staff centralized in the online support center provides primary support to online majors and provide supplementary support to campus majors when campuses are unavailable in the early morning, evening, weekends, and busy seasons (Distance Minnesota Blueprint, n.d.).
Meeting notes suggest that orchestrating service to the two types of students requires processes that synchronize efforts of staff from member colleges and staff located in the online support center
September 2006 Board notes: The Deans on the Process Team were appointed by colleges to serve the role of “’consortium process implementation coordinator’ and are responsible for working with college admin/management on implementation” (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). Process Team notes section: Discussion about the process for communicating important information involved defining the problem, the information needed, and exploring what the consortium office could do to help information flow more freely (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). August 2006 Process Team notes: “When students need classes it is difficult (for campus staff) to know who to contact, which campuses are which (too many acronyms), who is teaching the course…” (Distance Minnesota, n.d.).
The consortium website focuses on prospective students, and links currently enrolled students to a portal that contains information that is personalized to each enrolled student
Website promotes admission to 41 online programs (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). Each program webpage appearing under the Prospective Student section includes a button titled, “Apply Now” (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). Also provided are: Online basic skills and course placement assessments; free demo course; free online orientation workshop; and tutorials on how to get started in online courses. Current students are directed to MyOnlinePortal where features include: My Courses, My Email, Web Registration, My Help, and access to online bookstore, library; tutoring, and personal portfolio.
200
Table 21 Interviews: Practice Theme Learningand studentcentered design
Sample Data “We don’t need all the bells and whistles – we need to have what supports academics and learning” (#38). “Having different ways of doing things is not student friendly “(#35). “Classes are set up for the advantage of students so the ease of registration is increased greatly” (#49). Seamlessness was accomplished by weaving together the state resources available to all campuses with those owned by the consortium colleges to create a college environment online that was student-centered and barrier-free, and thereby seamless. In the seamless consortium environment, students were associated with a home college of their choosing. Unlike other students in the state who were taking courses from multiple colleges and therefore had to file multiple applications and pay multiple processing fees, students in the consortium filed an application to a home college of their choosing, only paid a one-time processing fee, and were thereby eligible to register for online courses from any consortium partner. From the familiarity of their home college web registration engines, students were able to enroll into online courses, and to participate in courses from the familiarity of their home college portals and online course rooms.
Compatible “Keeping the end user in mind is wise, as is knowing there are some things that cannot be to state controlled but must be integrated” (#38). “Registration has been worked out behind the system scenes (seamless). Improvements are needed in paying…making it smoother… (and making students) able to pay once and get financial aid across the system” (#06). Because the practice of seamlessness was not fully integrated into the technologies that students used there was “extra work at the college level” (#31) that would be required until the state technologies were upgraded to be all encompassing of the student lifecycle and the diverse student body. We fill in the gaps as needed to serve students seamlessly: E.g., “Until the technology is in place could someone…” (#41). Detailed planning
Because the consortium aimed to deliver a consistent quality experience to students from multiple points of contact and many people were involved, there was need to stipulate activity that would exceed what policy would normally address (#27). “Good processes are needed. A team with foresight is needed to address processes. The goal is to put in place processes that all parties agree upon and stick too” (#41). “It is very important to involve the right people in planning and delivery” (#31). “Have discussions upfront on processes that we have learned are important” (#49). “Regarding the blueprint (a document that annotates responsibilities)…getting oriented to it takes time, but the time should be taken…it becomes more understandable over time and should be revisited” (#17).
Designated areas of responsibility and ongoing training Problemcentered and solutionsfocused culture
As explained, processes and procedures were designed around two types of students – campus students taking online courses and online majors (i.e., students pursuing completion of an entire degree online). Handling differed based on the student type. E.g., “For campus students, I handle the processing. For online majors I send a notice (or referral) to an advisor from the distance office” (#41). “Train student service staff on processes and on process changes” (#16). “The hurdle for students is not the distance office, but billing and financial aid” (#33). “Registration and billing are process and technology dependent, and both aspects must be addressed in system design” (#23).
(Table 21 continues on next page)
201
(Continuation of Table 21) Theme
Sample Data
Aligned in “Set up the same path, the same policies, and the same procedures, and realize that things need key areas to be adjusted as you go” (#35). “The rules need to be the same” (#18). Areas of concern: [a] Admission entry requirements (#05, #28). [b] Policies on distributing course seats among members (#06, #14). [c] Assessment and data collection practices (#36). [d] Shared course outlines (#01). [e] Scheduling guidelines, application of course pre-requisites and registration edits, and scheduling deadlines (#01). [f] Same dates for other important timed events – e.g., term start, deadlines for free drop/add, early alerts, withdraw, tuition due and drop for nonpayment, grade entry (#01, #06, #07, #15, #18, #35, #39, #41, #47, #49). [g] Student communications on book ordering (#07, #37). [h]Billing and payment processes, and course eligibility for financial aid (#06, #23, #26, #43). [i] Satisfactory academic progress standards and processing timelines (#07). “All the little things make a big difference (e.g., course provider, info, teacher, calendar events – tuition due dates, course start, drop/add, etc). If these can be worked out ahead things go better” (#31). “While it is important to keep everything as simple as possible, a myriad of details will need to be worked out. You can’t let the details go or people will be frustrated” (#27). Problem- To improve, “…dissect and resolve specific issues or design specific processes” (#34). “Some centered things work well. E.g., scheduling, communication, seat distribution procedures, textbooks and through the online bookstore” (#17); “Book ordering is going better since one person has been solutions- named the key contact at the distance office” (#47); “The click list was helpful although it was focused not used to its full advantage…hard to get started on it…lack of time…some topics did not culture apply to me” (#32). “Procedures are not exactly clear” (#39). Revisiting and clarifying some processes and procedures was recommended several times (#9, #26, #31, #33, #41): Reregistering no-shows; satisfactory academic progress; paperless credit transfer; graduation process; reactivating majors; appeals and suspensions; cut score alignment; billing, payment, and financial aid; student record edits for courses offered by partner colleges; email directories for key contacts at colleges; role of DARS/CAS in advising; new program setup; charging books to financial aid; and communication materials (e.g., how to get started postcards to registrars, to use at campuses. "The hurdle for students is not the distance office, but billing and financial aid” (#33). “Registration and billing are process and technology dependent, and both aspects must be addressed in system design” (#23). Continued “reinvent, recreate, and add new things” (#45). “We have a good base…we need to keep developm working through the processes…while also working on hot button issues” (#41). “If issues need ent and an immediate resolution, raise the concern with a phone call and then call together a project improvem action team to assess the problem and create a resolution” (#49). “Improving the longer range ent views would help in planning and coordinating work. Discuss the future so we may each plan/manage our parts and so our supervisors can be more prepared and knowledgeable” (#26). “An ongoing challenge is how you integrate decisions with daily standard business practices. The institution needs to commit at all levels – structural and cultural – believing the consortium partnership has enough value to be considered in daily business practices” (#44). “The seamless effort is both good and bad. The concept of one student ID that is accepted at any state college or university is good, and will help students when transferring from one college to the next. However, the seamless registration may be ahead of its time. Students do not have one ID or record; they may register easily but run into problems with billing, payment, etc” (#20). “Payment is confusing…when we have common calendars increasing the ease of payment could occur overnight” (#49). “Customer service is a work in progress; ours has improved and needs to be refined as we move forward. These is a benefit to having the business rules outlined and then aligning the technology to them although this is not always possible…only with some practice in implementation will you get feedback that can inform the shaping of business rules, technology, and the relationship between the two” (#38). “I feel the more we keep tweaking the distance processes, the student experience will continue to get better and better” (#41).
202
4. Capabilities: (See Table 22 and 23.) Several mechanisms supported the relationship of members: Revenue and expense sharing model; a contract review cycle and change process; agreements regarding clinical usage, materials and books; college and consortium office/support center responsibilities; and a process for resolving disputes and exit opportunities. Other identified capabilities included: Network of work groups; commitment to continuous improvement; focus on students and stakeholders; varied forums; facilitation; engagement; participation; ownership; system simplification; problem-solving; and change management.
5. Representations/artifacts: (See Table 24 and Table 25.) The consortium archives were comprised of codified knowledge objects. The communication capacity of the consortium was represented by the interactive “channels” (i.e., searchable frequently asked questions, phone, email, Ask a Question, live chat). Representing the soft knowledge of the consortium was a network of support staff and other key contacts that students and other could access. In the discussions, the importance of a knowledge management plan was implied; however, such a plan was not located.
203
Table 22 Documentation Review: Capabilities Observation
Sample Data
Founding documents establish the mechanisms supporting the consortium relationship
Fiscal arrangements for revenues, fiscal arrangements for expenditures, review/change cycle (Distance Minnesota Intra-Agency Agreement, 2004). Clinical site usage and materials and book arrangements (Distance Minnesota Intra-Agency Agreement, 2004). Participating college and shared service office responsibilities (Distance Minnesota Intra-Agency Agreement, 2004). Process for resolution of disputes and exit opportunities (Distance Minnesota Intra-Agency Agreement, 2004).
Meeting notes and materials suggest that groups attend to immediate issues and to continuous improvement – resolving problems and proactively addressing anticipated challenges
In the February 2006 Portal Project Team notes: “The meeting today was to take comments and finalize the distance portal that will be launched around March 15th. Comments are welcomed through Friday, Feb 24th for those who were not able to attend the meeting (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). In the August 2006 PSEO Intervention Team notes: “Group feels satisfied the “surprises” that set people off guard last spring have been worked out with the process as is” (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). In the December 2006 CAO notes: Topics include communicating workload philosophy, course shelf life, communicating course changes, tracking course changes, guiding principles for % of seats sold (Distance Minnesota, n.d.).
The consortium website communicates the important role continuous improvement plays in developing the online college experience
“…Board works on behalf of members to set the regionally shared vision that shapes the Distance Minnesota experience. The Regional Academic Leadership (deans)…faculty and staff…serving on the Online Learning and Seamless Services Team, and the Marketing and Outreach Team bring it to life (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). “Distance Minnesota documents the system, measures it effectiveness, and makes information available for public review…To provide students with the most satisfying, effective, and affordable online education experience possible, and to continuously improve the experience...” (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). “To learn more… visit the system documentation center or contact us” (Distance Minnesota, n.d.).
204
Table 23 Interviews: Capabilities Theme
Sample Data
Student and stakeholder focused
“The model gets you thinking about stakeholders relative to the decisions you are processing…stakeholders beyond yourself, your institution, and who you typically consider your students” (#44). “Resolving things in ways that work for learners is important. Colleges try to do what is in the best interest of students, but sometimes things get tied up in what is the best interest of campuses. There are some odd communication issues that crop up, but knowing everyone is trying to do their best helps with identifying and solving problems” (#14).
Varied forums
Meeting via technology was described as workable by most, and appreciated as a time saver that allowed for meeting frequently for shorter periods of time (#01, #17, and #38). “When we started by ITV…In an hour meeting, I may be understood 15 minutes of the conversation” (#37). When meeting by technology was interspersed with meeting occasionally in-person, it was easier to establish the relationships that were needed when convening by technology to resolve really challenging problems and to learn about complicated new information (#17, #24, #41, and #43). Promote using multiple modalities: Email (#01); the distance website (#02); searchable online FAQs (#26); telephone (#32, #35); student portal (#21); meeting in-person at least occasionally (#32).
Facilitation
“Specific things are done better than they were in the past…The distance office has gotten better at communicating and facilitating meetings” (#17). Do periodic interviews with key contacts and stakeholders (#30).Identify topics that need ongoing extensive communication and plan engagements to address them: E.g., Course term calendars (#07); course outlines and curriculum changes (#02); drop for nonpayment procedures and deadlines (#26); personnel changes (#47); book ordering (#1, #21); routing and escalating unresolved issues experienced by students (#20); post secondary options enrollment processes (#30); process for resolving D2L glitches (#16).
Engagement
Group members are “pretty straightforward and focused on learning give and take” (#14). “We need to call each other on behaviors…Don’t let them go on and on…Step in and reference the notes from the previous meeting…State this is what we decided already…Ask can we move on…” (#34). “In scheduling team meetings, the biggest frustration is the lack of preparedness…” (#01). “An ongoing dialog is needed too so flexibility, adaptability, and avoiding potential landmines is possible. The outcome of this would be increased communication, a commitment to live by the rules, an understanding of continuous evolution” (#44).
Participation
"Having everyone at meetings and working cooperatively has helped. We are each routinely assured that we are working toward the same goals and we can leverage each other’s ideas and expertise to get there” (#27). “Sometimes the players in scheduling are not connected…last fall different players than those who do scheduling attended. We need all players in the room at the same time. We have lost some of that” (#02). “Increasing the frequency of contact would help strengthen and clarify commitments to collaboration. We need to meet more frequently” (#02). Maintain staff continuity was emphasized – e.g., representatives at meetings, key contacts for various topics (#37). (Table 23 continues on next page)
205
(Continuation of Table 23) Theme
Sample Data
Participation
"Having everyone at meetings and working cooperatively has helped. We are each routinely assured that we are working toward the same goals and we can leverage each other’s ideas and expertise to get there” (#27). “Sometimes the players in scheduling are not connected…last fall different players than those who do scheduling attended. We need all players in the room at the same time. We have lost some of that” (#02). “Increasing the frequency of contact would help strengthen and clarify commitments to collaboration. We need to meet more frequently” (#02). Maintain staff continuity was emphasized – e.g., representatives at meetings, key contacts for various topics (#37). The colleges working on distance issues have come a long way. The collaborative effort among the individuals from the colleges involved with day to day processes and their voice in policy and procedure decisions makes me feel we are really a part of this decision making process” (#41). “Sometimes discussions need to focus on the original intent so it is easier for everyone to manage their behaviors” (#11). “(Sometimes college staffs)…do not realize that their colleges are making the decisions” (#49). “People are so busy – simple things may hold others up” (#35).
Ownership
Communication
Simplify the system
“Communication is critical” (#31). “Making success takes an immense amount of communication” (#27). “Consistent communications are important to viability” (#38). “Communication is so important; we need to lace it into everything we do” (#35). “People seem willing to communicate to solve problems and have demonstrated they can work in a consortium model and connect it to other things at campuses. The coalition [consortium] has delivered some very forward thinking innovative technology solutions” (#41). “Communication needs to flow from distance to colleges and from colleges to distance” (#47). “There is a need to encourage communication across campuses and between faculty and staff located at different campuses, not just between a campus and the support office” (#17). “The biggest problem in all the communication is there is not enough time for people to read incoming email. As a result, people are not prepared, they forget their assignments, and they don’t check the documentation. People are wasting their own time, and wasting each other’s college’s time and the time of the people in the distance office” (#34). “Keep individuals in the loop about information” (#49). “Sometimes I receive information I do not need…Why do I need to know this?” (#39). “Use scenarios…show the problem and promote and explain the student experience. Illustrate how politics trickles down” (#33). “While communication is helpful, it is far better when the system is simplified. A complicated system is difficult to explain, even if you work within it every day” (#18). “Conceptually some of these solutions were not that difficult to understand but the complexity became very real in dealing with issues that arose when multiple users across multiple systems began interacting…” (#41). (Table 23 continues on the next page)
206
(Continuation of Table 23) Theme
Sample Data
Problem-solving “Solving problems requires figuring out the priorities, adjusting as experience is gained, and using the time to make advancements…sometimes doing a prototype for others to see is helpful for getting specific feedback and for shaping the details” (#38). Develop and promote frequently asked questions/answers for students and for employees (#26). “Determine and publish who to call for what” (#27). Foster a “call and ask” mentality that encourages individuals to find out what they need to know, to figure out what happened if things do not go well, and to make suggestions (#14). “I want people to think and act, and not let problems or concerns fester: I won’t complain. I will make a call and I will ask why” (#49). “Resolving technology problems quickly is important, as is holding students harmless if the technology fails” (#27). “The experience has been a positive experience and a very learn as you go experience” (#21). “To work better and smoother is the ultimate goal…” (#05). “Problem solving is assisted when individuals keep an open mind” (#41) and “…by being able to address the white elephants…if we aren’t honest or we don’t address them, we waste each other’s time” (#24). “There will be problems, but the point is to resolve them quickly and to use what is learned to make things better and better. Things don’t always go as planned. You have to monitor for problems and adjust as you go. When doing new things or doing things differently, being ready to implement ‘stop-gaps’ is important” (#14). (Ask) “Why? Who is doing something similar and doing it well? How might the problem be solved differently?” (#28). Change management
“We need to help people see that change is a good thing…don’t be afraid…change will make things better. Building the confidence of others, helping them understand the situation, and making big changes in small steps are good” (#48). “In pioneering work, the trail is rougher and acceptance that others will reap the benefits from the lessons learned by pioneers is accepted. Yet, we can’t ignore that somebody today is having a rough time. Being driven to find solutions on their behalf is an obligation to be taken seriously” (#15). “We need to respond to, ‘What activities and processes are needed so we can communicate similarities and handle differences?’” (#26). Offering “just in time” messaging and providing an adequate supply of “good information” and access to pertinent student data so people have what they need to know when they need to know it was emphasized (#03, #23, #26, #38, and #42). Simple messages without too much detail are most easily understood (#03). Convey changes or the need for them, in the context of how the decisions serve “the student’s best interest” (#35). Data from student surveys and appeals provide a wealth of information about problems students have experienced and others may have overlooked” (#47). “Encourage individuals to think about and plan out: How do I get information? Who do I connect with on issues? How may I report problems without going through a formal chain of command? Create a system whereby staff can raise questions electronically, so we can figure out what is happening, why it is happening, and if it needs attention immediately or eventually “(#49). When decisions and agreements made in conversation played out afterward as behaviors that suggest the person (President or designee) had a change of mind” (#43) then there is need to find out what happened (#43). (It is important to help people understand), “it’s okay to change and move in a different direction if something isn’t working” (#38). (End of Table 23)
207
Table 24 Documentation Review: Representations and Artifacts Observation
Sample Data:
The knowledge objects referenced in the founding documents take a codified form.
An official legally binding agreement made between member colleges is the primary communicator regarding the relationship members intend to create and foster under the auspices of the Distance Minnesota consortium (Distance Minnesota Intra-Agency Agreement, 2004). References to the “Handbook for Shared Distance Services” (Distance Minnesota Intra-Agency Agreement, 2004). Indicates handbook would contain: “…essential member requirements…policies, procedures, processes, and principles…college responsibilities… (And) a description of shared services” (Distance Minnesota Intra-Agency Agreement, 2004).
The knowledge objects included in meeting notes and materials take a codified form also.
Knowledge on formalized processes is presented in text format in Sys Doc (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). Knowledge on implementation plans is presented in text format in Sys Doc (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). Knowledge created during group work sessions is contained in meeting notes and handouts found within the Meetings and Notes section of the System Documentation Center (Distance Minnesota, n.d.).
The website is comprised largely of knowledge codified in text and other media, and interactive “channels” (searchable frequently asked questions, phone, email, Ask a Question, live chat) through which the expertise of support staff and other key contacts may be accessed.
Home page contains links to online tutorials that may be used by students and staff (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). An interactive codified knowledge bank offered by the Minnesota Online Support Center contains a searchable bank of answers to frequently asked questions (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). Channels for accessing the soft knowledge of support staff are promoted also - Live Chat, Ask a Question, toll free phone number (Distance Minnesota, n.d.).
208
Table 25 Interviews: Representations and Artifacts Theme
Sample Data
Knowledge management plan
“With new staff coming on board to replace former staff or to serve as added help, there is need to retain and share knowledge. Is there a plan for this?” (#32). “Prepare the components others need to see to get involved” (#13). “Good information makes for good decisions” (#23). “Some of the original players who started the consortium are no longer involved or no longer employed in the colleges. We have carried forward different assumptions. Not everyone is on the same page. We need to reaffirm what we agreed to. It is easy to forget. We need to meet more frequently” (#02). “As new ideas are driven through, data is critical” (#23).
Repository format
Identified as repositories that were used regularly when working with online students were (#03, #20, #25, #30, and #32): Integrated Student Records System/ISRS. Automated customer relationship management software (i.e., RightNow® Outbound Marketing, Sales, and Service Counsels). Consortium website. Online program webpage. System documentation center. College website; document production/sharing software (i.e., ImageNow®). Software to generate full motion video with audio (i.e., QuickTime Moviemaker®, NETS Web casting).
Presentation style
Suggestions were made by numerous participants (#01, #03, #08, #13, #20, #27, #37, #38, #47, and #49). Send email with links to agendas and supporting documents in advance of meetings. Make frequently asked questions and answers for students and employees at campuses and other locations. Provide simplicity with opportunities for drilling deeper: “While it is important to keep everything as simple as possible, a myriad of details will need to be worked out. You can’t let the details go or people will get frustrated” (#27). Offer visualizations: “visual report” (#08); “Diagram the model…so staff may envision it more easily” (#37), “working models/prototypes/use cases” (#38), “Stream map the flows” (#49). Provide verbal explanations. Integrate important items at each member college website. Employ scenario-based communications. Co-present items – include member college staff in developing materials and presenting them internally and externally (#34). Initiate monthly communications (e.g., Newsletter sent to key contacts in academic and registrar offices and lead faculty for online programs, #47).Use templates: [a] Make processes and procedures widely available (#02, #03, #27, #30, #32, #37, #41). [b] Create/provide operational planning tools for new members (i.e., “…a complete checklist of things to talk about…a cheat sheet”, #37). [c] Streamline notes, make copies widely available, and avoid differing interpretations. [d] “A listing of who is who and what they do” (#31). (Table 25 continues on next page)
209
(Continuation of Table 25) Theme
Sample Data:
Content – (i.e., plans, processed, tools, data, notes)
Encompass administration, academics, outreach and support, and technology in processes and procedures: [a] Administration: Ongoing orientation for new personnel; collaborative calendar development; and, consistent online book ordering process that leverages financial aid opportunities. [b] Academics: Coordinated course/program development; checklist driven program startup procedure; communication of curricular changes between members and the central support office; collaborative schedule development; and coordinated student advising. [c] Outreach and support: Synchronized drop, add, withdraw and drop for non-payment; coordinated processing of no shows; coordinated and closely monitored student appeals resolution; and standardized transcript release/distribution. [d] Technology: Instructions on accessing data from student records for students enrolled from the offering college and partner colleges. Several clearinghouses were discussed (#02, #03, #20, #23, #27, #29, #31). Courses: [a] A schedule and registration report that displays courses available from all members, course caps, seats available to colleges, seats filled and courses instructor contact information – name, email address, office hours, phone number; [b] course outlines for all courses appearing on the schedule; and [c] course syllabi availability during advising and registration periods. Programs: [a] A list of online programs available through the consortium; [b] minimum enrollment benchmarks for online programs; [c] program startup checklist; and [d] repositories of free and inexpensive learning objects. Student support: [a] Access to the full complement of student data from the Integrated Student Records System/ISRS; [b] course term calendar; and [c] important deadlines. Important information: [a] Incumbent business model underlying the consortium. [b] Explanations of the division of duties between the state system, the consortium, the online support office, member colleges and campuses, and faculty, staff, and administrators. [c] Academic planning and development. [d] Revenue and expenditure sharing. [e] Values and desired key outcomes. [f] Goals, benchmarks, and related evidence. [g] Rules and decision-making authorities. [h] Commonalities and differences in the participating student body. [i] Video footage of students describing their expectations and experiences in the consortium setting. [j] Usage statistics. (End of Table 25)
210
The consortium website offered information to prospective students, and the My Online Portal offered information to students currently enrolled in online courses. A repository known as "Sys Doc" provided employees with access to meeting agendas, notes, and some plans, processes, and procedures. The Integrated Student Records System (ISRS) held course information and public and private student information. The customer service database used by staff in the support center held the information on the transactions whereby staff provided help to students on online matters.
A succinct presentation style was appreciated and several preferences were identified (e.g., email with links, information released in advance of meetings, simple messages with drill-down opportunities, graphical reporting, verbal explanations, information integrated at the college websites, scenario-based communications, presentations made by campus and support center staff, a routinely issued newsletter, template-driven communications). Arranging content by role was suggested (i.e., content for administration, academics, outreach/support staff, and technology), and several clearinghouses were suggested (e.g., courses, programs, student support, and institutional data).
6. Spaces/places: (See Table 26 and 27.) Founding documents implied gatherings would occur. While the originating documents did stipulate a particular meeting format, records showed that most meetings were convened by technology. Overcoming time constraints and travel barriers was a priority 211
concern. The place that employees frequented for information (Sys Doc) did not contain a mechanism for convening; however a variety of communication technologies were available to consortium members (e.g., teleconferencing, interactive video and audio, online meeting software, live chat, ask a question, email, telephone, searchable FAQs, fax). Also proposed was the necessity of meeting in-person at least occasionally for all work groups and for campus visits. Additionally, in-person meetings were recommended for startup activities (introduction and orientation of new member colleges, new staff orientation, program advising startup) and for discussing sensitive topics (visioning, topics that do not have a set of well-defined operations, policy change, issues of great importance). Consortium Collaboration Infrastructure Features Data on the design of collaboration features (i.e., engagement, imagination, and alignment facilities) were mined to present information for making comparisons to the collaboration infrastructure described by Wenger (2003, pp. 237-239). Engagement was investigated through the frameworks of mutuality, continuity and competence. Imagination was investigated through the frameworks of orientation, exploration and reflection. Alignment was investigated through the frameworks of convergence, coordination and arbitration.
212
Table 26 Documentation Review: Spaces and Places Observation:
Sample Data:
Founding documents imply gatherings will occur, but do not stipulate the format.
“Identify and commit institution staff to participate in coordinating process, planning and policy groups such as councils, operations advising team, and task forces” (Distance Minnesota Intra-Agency Agreement, 2004).
Meeting notes and materials indicate groups typically convene by technology.
Notes from the Board, the Process Team, and the Scheduling Team show synchronous meetings are typically convened via interactive television and meet me phone conferences (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). Agendas posted in Meetings and Notes show that only the Board appears to meet consistently in a face-to-face forum (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). Agendas posted in Meetings and Notes show that in the last year, the Process Team met face-to-face only once, while in the same period, the Scheduling Team did not meet face-to-face at all (Distance Minnesota, n.d.).
The consortium website provides an online System Documentation Center that does not host meetings, but hosts group archives and meeting materials.
Board Meetings and Notes provide access to member rosters, future meeting agendas, handouts, and references, drafts of work in progress, and notes from past meetings (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). Process Team Meetings and Notes provide access to member rosters, future meeting agendas, handouts, and references, drafts of work in progress, and notes from past meetings (Distance Minnesota, n.d.). Scheduling Team Meetings and Notes provide access to member rosters, future meeting agendas, handouts, and references, drafts of work in progress, and notes from past meetings (Distance Minnesota, n.d.).
213
Table 27 Interviews: Spaces and Places Theme:
Sample Data:
Overcoming time constraints and travel barriers
Time efficiencies of convening with colleagues across the region while never leaving one’s work location were mentioned by several participants (#01, #13, #17, #32, #35, #38, #45). “I like the flexibility we have. We meet face-to-face once and then by Polycom or phone conference. If we did not do it this way, a lot of time would be wasted” (#01). “I think the coalition (consortium) and colleges did a fairly good job at coming together with communication via ITV (interactive television), email, and in person where necessary to gather requirements and meet objectives” (#38).
Communication technologies
“The technology has to be simple to use“(#27). Technologies identified as widely accessible and universal (#01, #02, #10, #13, #17, #18, #21, #30, #32, #35, #37, #38, #41, #45): [a] Pre-programmed interactive television connections (audio/visual). [b] PolyCom (on-demand dialing to make audio-visual connections between individuals distributed across the region). [c] Phone conferencing capabilities. [e] Sys Doc (Internetbased repository of information). [f] MyOnline Portal (personalized secure website that presents information and interactive tools to students enrolled online). [g] Desire2Learn (electronic course room). [h] IP telephony (voice over Internet protocol). [i] RightNow Suite® (customer relationship management software). [j] Consortium website. [k] Email. Opportunities to mix mediums: E.g. phone conferencing and web access to documentation.
Occasional inperson consortium meetings
“Technology is helpful, but we should not overlook the need to build personal relationships by being face-to-face” (#17). “Communication is so important to working together. Sometimes there are issues that can only be addressed well if you get to look into someone’s eyes…if you can get a feel for the nonverbal and body language” (#43). Occasional in-person meetings were suggested for all workgroups (#17, #18, #24, #32), and specifically for the operations and scheduling teams (#02), program faculty and online student advisors (#18), and campus visits made by online support center administration (#41). In-person meetings were suggested also for startup activities that included: the introduction and orientation of new member colleges (#02, #37), new staff orientation (#17, #37), and program advising startup that involves lead faculty and online student advisors (#18, #32). Recommended in-person meetings for the more sensitive topics: Discuss ”visionary futuristic aspects” of working together (#02); for topics that do not have a set of well-defined operations (#17); for policy changes (#24); to meet personal needs (#32); and, to address “issues” of great importance (#43). "When we started by ITV, it was hard to assess where we get in…how it hung together. In an hour meeting, I may be understood 15 minutes of the conversation” (#37).
214
Facilities for Engagement: Mutuality Data pertaining to the consortium engagement facilities (Wenger, 2003, pp. 238) were drawn into tables. Located in Table 28 are data on the consortium interactional facilities. Found in Table 29 are data pertaining to joint tasks. Summarized in Table 30 are data on peripherality. Findings: Features Supporting Mutuality. 1. Interactional facilities: (See Table 28.)
Physical facilities: Included in the physical facilities were eight campuses, one learning center located off-campus, and a consortium office/support center. Sites were connected through an interactive television network, the telephone system, and Internet compatible technologies.
Virtual facilities: Virtual facilities offered varying interactivity. A website provided tools (e.g., live chat, ask a question online, email) whereby a campus staff could connect directly with a staff at the consortium support center. An on-demand teleconferencing capability was activated from the consortium support center supported small groups that convened informally and ondemand. With pre-planning, the work of pairs, small group work, and formally convened meetings could convene through interactive television video systems and online technologies. Email, telephone, teleconferencing, and voicemail, and interactive television video were used regularly. Synchronous communication between pairs was supported by the telephone 215
and live chat. Synchronous communication between groups was supported by interactive television video, teleconferencing systems, and online meeting software. Asynchronous communication between pairs was supported by voicemail, ask a question online, and email. Asynchronous communication between groups was supported by email and online meeting software.
Time for interaction: (See Table 28.) By virtue of their membership, consortium colleges were obligated to identify and commit staff to participate in coordinating process, planning, and policy groups. Sometimes individuals from communities of interest at campuses accompanied the appointed individuals. Time for facilitating consortium events was embedded in the job descriptions of consortium administration. While expected to integrate working together into their delivery of services to students, neither staff at colleges nor those working at the consortium office/support center had job descriptions that dedicated time specifically to participating in consortium groups or attending consortium events. Participants from both locations expressed interest in working together and also concerns about the time constraints associated with working together.
Travel budgets for interaction: (See Table 28.) Colleges funded travel for their employees, and the consortium funded travel for staff at the consortium office/support center.
216
Table 28 Engagement: Mutuality and Interactional Facilities Feature
Sample data
Physical spaces:
Four colleges and their 8 campuses, and 1 satellite site; Consortium office/support center.
Virtual spaces:
Public consortium website; public online help center for students; private online portal for students; semi private online archive of documentation.
Interactive technologies
Toll free telephone number; teleconferencing; voicemail; TTY relay service; fax; interactive television; email; ask a question online; live chat; searchable FAQ bank. Most meetings were convened by technology to reduce travel time and expense to make working together more financially feasible.
Time for interaction
Member college responsibility: “Identify and commit institution staff to participate in coordinating process, planning and policy groups such as councils, operations advising team, and task forces” (Distance Minnesota Intra-Agency Agreement, 2004). Campuses appointed staff to participate; sometimes additional staff attended. Participants from campuses were to take the time needed to participate, while also fulfilling their regular college/campus duties. Consortium office/support center administration job descriptions indicated time for facilitating the process of working together. Time issues: Finding time for doing college and consortium work, for staying informed, for learning new techniques, and for adjusting everyday work to align with the practices emerging from the consortium.
Travel budgets
Consortium office/support center staff attended events using consortium office/support center funds from budget. Campus staff attended consortium events using funds from campus/college budgets. Participants from further distances incurred more travel costs.
217
2. Joint tasks: (See Table 29.)
Things to do together: The charge to individuals at campuses and the online consortium office/support center, those working in small informal groups, and those convened formally was to complete tasks associated with the fulfilling the consortium mission to provide “…a satisfying, effective, affordable online education experience”.
Shared among member colleges, their campus staffs, and the consortium office/support center was the responsibility to deliver direct services to two primary customers – (1) students pursuing completion of a degree program online, and (2) campus students who took online courses intermittently.
The scope of the work was set by a “Distance Education Blueprint” that depicted the academics, outreach and support, and technology functions comprising the online college experience for the two types of students.
To large extent, the consortium had the freedom to explore and design the collaborative system knowing that the work of the group was subject to individually-provided and at-large redirection by Member College Presidents and their administrative designees.
218
Table 29 Engagement: Mutuality and Joint Tasks Feature
Sample data
Things to do together
Exploratory system design that was commissioned and then redirected at the discretion of Member College Presidents and their administrative designees. Tasks associated with the fulfilling the consortium mission to provide “…a satisfying, effective, affordable online education experience”. Collaboratively implement the plan, do, check, act approach to work as outlined in the “System Map” that depicted the involvement of primary functions – i.e., system design, development and resource management, online education delivery, technology integration, and evaluation, measurement, analysis, and improvement. The choreography of areas that appeared on the “Distance Education Blueprint” and comprised the online student experience. (1) Collaboratively designing/developing, integrating, and implementing processes, procedures, and technologies that comprised the online college experience. (2) Collaboratively resolve boundary issues between colleges, and between colleges and the online support center. Delivery of direct services to two primary customers – (1) students pursuing completion of a degree program online, and (2) campus students who took online courses intermittently. Identification or problematic discrepancies between college policies.
Available help
Consortium office/support center was open seven days a week with early morning, traditional, and evening hours. Some campuses had designated distance advisors to help campus students with online courses and consortium staff and employees at other member colleges with issues of mutual concern. Campus faculty designed and delivered online courses and assessed student learning. Specialists in admissions, registration, financial aid, program and course design, delivery, and marketing, and technical infrastructures participated in consortium groups and when requested they availed themselves to consult with consortium office/support center staff. Consortium administration was available to facilitate networking, and college/campus administration provided institutional context, participated in planning and directed integration at the institution. State system staff was available in an advisory capacity.
219
Involved in the work scope were five primary tasks: (1) Designing the choreography for academic, outreach and support, and technology processes; (2) developing, integrating, and implementing the system script for producing the online college experience – i.e., processes, procedures, and technologies; (3) resolving unanticipated boundary issues between colleges, and between colleges and the online support center; (4) improving performance as measured by access, learning effectiveness, student satisfaction, cost effectiveness, and faculty/staff satisfaction, and (5) identifying to member college Presidents/administrative designees for possible remediation, the problematic discrepancies between member college policies.
Help availability: Students had access to staff located at the support center 7 days a week including early morning and nights, and to staff from campuses during regular campus business hours 5 days a week. Some campuses, but not all, had designated a distance advisor or a distance center to help students with online matters. Campus academic departments and their faculty delivered online degree programs and courses, and assessed student learning. Frontline staff at campuses and at the consortium office/support center delivered services directly to students, provided assessments on the student experience that were used to inform the system design, development, and delivery, and consulted with peers throughout the campuses involved in the consortium. Additionally, select frontline staff was appointed to serve as members of various consortium groups. Specialists in the functions of admission, 220
registration, financial aid, marketing, accreditation and assessment, and technical infrastructures provided function specific input to group work, and also availed their expertise to consortium office/support center staff when contacted. Two consortium administrators, the Consortium System Director and the Director of Technology and Services were available to facilitate networking among member colleges and lead design, development, and deployment planning. College administrators were available to participate in developing collaborative plans and to integrate plans within their specific institutions. State system staff provided advisement as requested, were partners in select initiatives (online support center), and offered access to special resources.
3. Peripherality: (Refer to Table 30.)
Boundary encounters: The factor motivating encounters most often was the seamlessness of the system, or lack thereof. Typically, boundary encounters were initiated by interests and concerns communicated from college/campus administration and staff, and were brokered by consortium office/support center administration and staff. Encounters were focused generally on assessing and then adjoining boundaries set by college-determined policies, planning, and practices. Encounters between members or the at-large membership of the groups dealing with system design, development, and deployment planning typically occurred in formal meetings and in email and 221
phone communications that were generated between meetings. Encounters between faculty and staff who interfaced with students on an everyday basis occurred in (a) the process of processing, advising, and instructing students, and (b) when responding to student complaints, appeals, and grievances. The encounters occurred in the context of communications exchanged between pairs or small groups of interested parties through phone, voicemail, or email. During the data collection period of the study, the open-ended boundary issues were focused on governance and division of duties.
Ways of belonging: Individuals operating in the roles of provider, stakeholder, and student had varied opportunities to belong. Providers and students were able to directly participate respectively through appointments to groups and provision of services to students, and through enrollments in online courses. Individuals who were stakeholders to the processes, procedures, and technologies involved in providing a seamless online college experience to students participated indirectly by providing input to their respectively appointed group member. Additionally available to employees involved indirectly were opportunities to communicate about the online experience to peers in the workplace, prospective and current students, parents, funding agencies, and corporations and agencies, communities, and individuals residing in the college service areas. Belonging was fostered also when individuals acted in the role of consultant/advisor and provided solicited and unsolicited advisement in their areas of expertise. 222
Observations, casual encounters, and open houses: Opportunities to observe the consortium were available when visiting the consortium websites and documentation archive available online, and through information presented at the member college websites, during formal presentations made to the campus staffs of member colleges and made at national, state, and regional meetings, workshops, and conferences. Also providing insights on the consortium operations were articles and other promotional materials published on the web and in print media (e.g., brochures, flyers, news releases, stories and ads in newspapers and newsletters, testimonials).
Casual encounters offered another modem for increasing awareness regarding consortium operations. Observed casual encounters included the receipt of unsolicited feedback from students, staff, and faculty, drop in visits from college employees traveling to other sites for personal or non-consortium business, college employees attending other business meetings held in the facility that the consortium office/support center was located, and conversations that occurred with consortium office/support center staff attending consortium meetings conducted at other sites.
Encounters also occurred in the context of open houses when faculty were onsite to plan the opening of new programs, when delegations toured the consortium office/support center, and when consortium staff visited member college campuses. 223
Table 30 Engagement: Mutuality and Peripherality Feature
Sample data
Boundary encounter
Encounters centered on making the system seamless. Typical encounters entailed assessing and adjoining institutional boundaries present in policy, planning, and practice. System design, development, and deployment planning: In formal meetings; in email and phone communications occurring in the interim between members or among the group at-large. System delivery encounters: In the process of servicing student needs; in resolving barriers experienced by students; in complaints, appeals, and grievances; by phone, voicemail, or email shared between pairs or small groups. System assessment-oriented encounters: When implementing assessment processes (i.e., course surveys, Noel Levitz Priorities Survey of Online Learners). Boundary brokers: Consortium office/support center administration and staff. Open-ended boundary issues: (a) Governance structure (e.g., basis of representation, proportional size of delegation); (b) division of duties between the consortium office/support center (e.g., respective roles in governance, level of involvement in academic planning, responsibility to provide redundant student support, scope of authority relative to marketing/recruitment and managing the enrollment of online majors).
Ways of belonging
Direct participation: As employees through appointment to a consortium group, and engagement at the core or periphery and/or the delivery of services to students enrolling into online degree programs or courses. As student enrolled in an online program or course. Indirect participation: Providing to appointed members and stakeholders input to the processes, procedures, and technologies involved in providing a seamless online college experience to students. Communicating about the online experience to peers, prospective and current students, parents, funding agencies, corporate and community members. Consultant/advisor: Provision of expert advisement proactively and/or as requested.
Activities
Observations: Visitor to the consortium public website and partially public archive of documentation. Information presented at member college websites. Attendance at presentations at college/campus groups and at national, state system, and regional meetings, workshops, and conferences. Articles and other promotional materials published on the web and in print media (e.g., brochures, flyers, news releases, stories and ads in newspapers and newsletters, testimonials). Casual encounters: Feedback received informally from other students, staff, and faculty participating directly. Drop in visits from faculty and staff from nearby campuses when traveling from their home campus to meetings at the state system office. The most nearby member college regularly held college meetings in the conference rooms adjacent to the consortium office/online support center. Open houses: Faculty visiting the consortium office/online support center as part of the new program implementation process. Other delegations of staff visiting the support center. Consortium staff solicited invitations to visit campuses annually and visited campuses if/when invited and whenever consortium meetings were convened at a campus. (End of Table 30)
224
Facilities for Engagement: Competence Data pertaining to the consortium engagement facilities were drawn into tables of factors related to competence (Wenger, 2003, p. 238). (See Table 31 for initiative and knowledgeability, Table 32 for accountability, and Table 33 for tools.) Findings: Features Supporting Competence 1. Initiative Taking and Knowledgeability (See Table 31.) Activities: Participants learned the art of engagement in group work, in activities related to deployment, and when supporting student participating in online learning.
Situations: Numerous situations provided opportunities for participants to engage with others in applying skills, devising solutions, and making decisions: E.g., Law, policy, or accreditation changes; location of pertinent research and best practice models; complaints; problem solving student issues presented through email, online forms or by phone; student appeals and grievances; feedback received from others also responding to student requests for help; feedback received from student surveys; problems encountered when working with students on online matters; presentations and reports; compliance reports and audits.
Problems: The challenge of creating seamlessness between otherwise bounded entities (independent colleges) provided opportunities for participants to engage in problem-solving. Creating innovative practice, implementing pilots, 225
reworking activities to remove travel barriers, and otherwise adjusting the cadence to patterns not aligned with campuses created opportunities to engage others in problem-solving also. Providing additional opportunities were the integration of technologies that only partially automated a process and drawing data from colleges into presentations and statistics.
2. Accountability: (See Table 32.) Occasions for exercising judgments and for mutual evaluations: Formal group work provided occasions for evaluating progress and conducting mutual evaluations on a semester and annual basis. Formally constructed reports on access and participation, learning, student satisfaction and finances were available. Feedback from faculty, staff and college communities was used when received, but was not solicited in any formal way.
3. Recognizable style: (See Table 32.) The consortium embraced a problemcentered and state system-driven approach to action, which was more responsive than proactive in nature. In the course of regular business, the style embraced planning, implementing, checking results and adjusting activities to alleviate perceived problems. Decision making fell largely to appointed member of groups. Group decisions were made through a consensus process involving those in attendance. Group work was documented through formal means (e.g., notes, processes, forms).
226
Table 31 Engagement Facilities: Competence and Initiative and Knowledgeability Theme
Sample data
Activities that bring about knowledge ability of engagement
Group work: Policy interpretation, process design, planning and scheduling. Involvement in deployment: Technology integration; training, communication activities.
Occasions for applying skills, devising solutions, and making decisions
When federal or state law, system or colleges policies, or accreditation guidelines are changed. When pertinent research and best practice models are located. When handling complaints and problem-solving on the cases of individual students that are presented in emails, ask a question, and phone calls. When developing formal responses to student appeals and grievances. When responding to feedback offered incumbents in positions that lend support to online learning and service. When reviewing feedback received from student surveys (Noel Levitz Priorities of Online Learners Survey). When problems are observed from work role. When preparing reports or presentations for internal or external audiences. When responding to reports from internal and external compliance procedures and audits.
Problems that engage energy, creativity, and inventiveness
Creating seamlessness from bounded entities (colleges). Innovative practice design and pilot tests (e.g., web-based student recruitment, webbased on-demand retention programming, systems generating artificial intelligence). Completion of planning and decision-making and assessment activities typically requiring physical presence. Decision-making and deliveries that depart from the campus cadence. Situations in which technologies only partially automate processes. Data-driven information presentation and dynamic statistics generation.
227
Table 32 Engagement Facilities: Competence and Accountability Theme
Sample data
Occasions for exercising judgment and for mutual evaluation
Formal group work. Semester and annual reports on recruitment/retention, learning effectiveness, and participation/completion. Reports on satisfaction: Survey returns, complaints, appeals and grievances. Financial reports: Revenue/expenditures. Ongoing feedback received from staff and faculty.
Recognizable style
More responsive than proactive. Plan, do, check, act approach. Decision making duties of appointed members. Decisions by consensus. Formal documentation of group work (e.g., meeting agendas/notes, formal process/procedures, template driven forms). Pilot new processes/procedures and disseminate upon success. Integrate state-system driven changes (e.g. seamless registration tool). Informally based change management. Established escalation at support center.
Negotiation of joint enterprises
Assigned work occurs on the basis of student type (online degree seeker, occasional online course taker). Translate conversations to written electronic documents that formally clarify work scopes.
228
New ways of doing business were introduced into operations as pilots that were monitored through informal change management routines. Problems frontline staffs were unable to resolve independently were reported to the support center administration for review and action.
Negotiation of joint enterprises: (See Table 32.) The choreography of the work shared between campuses and the support center was driven by a distance blueprint that delegated primary responsibilities for two student groups (i.e., online majors and campus students taking online courses to supplement their schedules).
4. Tools (See Table 33.) Artifacts that support competence: Artifacts were located in two primary places – on a website (Sys Doc) and in a searchable bank of frequently asked questions. The logic for why documentation in one location versus the other was not apparent. Nor was it apparent that the documentation was arranged in complete sets (i.e., sets containing policy, process, work instructions, forms, and related student communications). At both sites, invitations to "contact us" for more information were extended. Discourses, terms and concepts: The consortium vernacular integrated terms and concepts used statewide, and also some terms specific to the consortium environment and its unique way of arranging and delivering courses and services to online students.
229
Delegation facilities (e.g., automation that allows practitioners to focus on more meaningful tasks): The program pages appearing at the consortium offered students a program-specific curriculum list, term course schedules and tools for applying online, completing basic skills testing online and a means for contacting an advisor for help. A variety of self-help tools were available to students through a special tool known as MyOnline Portal. In the personalized portal students had access to their records, grades registration and payment functions, communication tools (i.e., college email, online help desk) and a variety of course-related features (i.e., online course room, online bookstore, online tutoring, online library). Pre-programmed communications developed for prospective and enrolled students allowed staff to batch out special just-in-time messages.
230
Table 33 Engagement Facilities: Competence and Tools Theme
Sample data
Artifacts that support competence:
Sys Doc (documentation archive). Formalized process, procedures, forms, guides. Consortium website. Searchable bank of frequently asked questions. Call or contact me culture.
Discourses, terms and concepts:
Terms acknowledged statewide: E.g., FYE = full year equivalent, FTE = fulltime equivalent, DFNP = drop for nonpayment, FA = financial aid. ISRS = Integrated student records system; uses numerically based language (i.e., spring 2008 = 20085, summer 2008 = 20091, fall 2008 = 20093; screen references ST1101UG = student enrollment information). eServices = student portal for course searching, registration, payment, viewing financial aid and course grades. DARS = Degree Audit Record Software = software that generates an unofficial report of what student has/needs to complete in order to graduate. D2L = Desire to Learn online course room. Consortium specific terms: E.g., Online major = student seeking to complete a degree, diploma, or certificate online. Online course taker = Students registered in online courses; includes online major and campus student taking online courses. Offering college = Institution with course outline on record/employer of course faculty. Home college = Institution at which student is admitted to a degree program. Consortium course schedule = listing comprised of the online courses offered by all member colleges. OCP = online course planning center. My Online Portal = personalized web page that displays public and private information to student upon authentication. Seat sharing, reserve a seat, seat shifts = Cross listing courses on each other’s schedules (seat sharing); allowing students from one college to register (reserve as seat); moving open seats to another college so its students may register (seat shift).
Delegation facilities: (e.g., automation that allows practitioners to focus on more meaningful tasks)
Prospect/admissions: Free online course previews (e.g., public access to Virtual Chocolate Workshop). Online program application is integrated with the student records system. Semi-automated prospect/admissions communications. Online course placement testing is integrated with student records system. Electronic records (transcripts for evaluation) are integrated with the student records system. Searchable knowledge bank. Admitted/Registered: Automated communications to students. My Online Portal provides links to all resources pertinent to an individual student. Online bookstore for ordering texts; text delivery direct to student. Online library, tutoring, forms. Searchable FAQ bank.
231
Facilities for Engagement: Continuity Data pertaining to the consortium engagement facilities (Wenger, 2003, p. 238) were located. Presented in Table 34 are data on reificative and participative memory. Findings: Features Supporting Continuity 1. Reificative memory: (See Table 34.)
Repositories: Two archives supported engagement: (1) “Sys Doc” which was a semi private collection of documents; and (2) “Online Support Center” which contained a repository of answers to frequently asked questions.
Documentation: Included in the documentation available to support engaging with others were: contracts, agreements, plans, reports, charts, job descriptions; meeting agendas, notes, membership lists; some formalized processes, procedures, and forms.
Retrieval mechanisms: References and artifacts were retrieved online through index navigation (point and click), keyword searches, through pre-scripted queries that were run on-demand, or via contacts made to staff responsible for specific documents.
232
2. Participative memory: (See Table 34.)
Generational encounters: Due to changes in staff assignments, retirements, and departures, new members to groups governing and operating the consortium appeared regularly.
Apprenticeship systems: New staff at the support center shadowed and was mentored by more experienced staff.
Paradigmatic trajectories: Some staff formerly involved in consortium groups continued to stay in touch after departing their posts to take position elsewhere; some of the other former members of groups who had moved into college administrative positions and remained involved in the consortium but in their new capacities.
Storytelling: Individuals involved in the consortium disseminated information verbally and took pride in being different from more institutionalized forums: E.g., "This consortium is made of those who want to be involved…As a result, we are developing our own ways of working together rather than focusing on implementing state regulations. This consortium is more natural, more organic, more homegrown, and more intentional” (#17).”
233
Table 34 Engagement Facilities: Memory Making Theme
Abstract on data pertinent to reificative memory:
Reificative memory making: Repositories of information
Sys Doc provided online access to archived documentation. Knowledge bank of frequently asked questions.
Reificative memory making: Documentation
Meeting agendas, notes and membership lists. Some formalized processes, procedures, and forms.
Reificative memory making: Retrieval mechanisms
Retrieval Sys Doc with username and password, and through index. Retrieval from the FAQ bank by keyword search or index navigation. Retrieval of student information contained within partitioned off areas using unique username and password. From consortium office/support center upon request received by phone, through email, or in writing.
Participative memory making: Generational encounters
Ongoing changes in campus staff, retirements, and departures translate to continuous influx of new members to established groups. Provides opportunities for meeting minds of new and tenured members.
Participative memory making: Apprenticeship systems
New staffs at the support center shadowed and were mentored by experienced staff.
Participative memory making: Paradigmatic trajectories
Some former faculty, staff, and administrators have stayed in touch in order to access consortium staff in the context of their new roles/settings. Some former online course faculty moved into college administrative positions to work as Deans, Vice Presidents.
Participative memory making: Storytelling
“This consortium is made of those who want to be involved…As a result, we are developing our own ways of working together rather than focusing on implementing state regulations. This consortium is more natural, more organic, more homegrown, and more intentional” (#17).
234
Facilities for Imagination: Orientation, Reflection and Exploration Data pertaining to the consortium imagination facilities (Wenger, 2003, p. 238) were drawn into tables. Presented in Table 35 are data on orientation and in Table 36 are data on reflection and exploration. Findings: Features Supporting Imagination 1. Orientation: (See Table 35.)
Location in space: Abstractions showing the consortium in the state space were not available, nor did any abstractions depict the consortium in relationship to the independent college operations or the operations of other education entities located in the region (e.g., neighboring universities, K-12 school districts, high school tech prep agencies and other service cooperatives). Neither was most staff able to explain the intended relationships; however, several participants questioned the intended relationships between the consortium and the state system and other potential partners.
Location in time: As perceived by most participants, within the state the consortium was an innovation. Most participants at-large considered the consortium to be cutting edge and somewhat ahead of its time. However, some individuals perceived that the consortium was lagging behind those headquartered in other states. Some comments suggested the consortium was
235
lagging behind private for profit entities and consortia headquartered in other states.
Location in meaning: The consortium was perceived as a change agency. Explanations, stories, and examples provided from participants suggested that the consortium was influential on college practices and that most practice changes within the consortium inherently and eventually lead to changing practices of member colleges also. Additionally several examples were cited to show how colleges had harvested knowledge gained in the consortium to make college operations more competitive: E.g., portals, data-driven communications, and centralization of specific functions.
Location in power: Power flows showed that member college Presidents had ultimate authority and could delegate at their discretion. Chief Academic and Financial Officers had been delegated authority and influenced and directed the work of groups comprised of Deans, Faculty, and support staff. The consortium administration and staff were positioned to serve as staff to administrative groups and to implement the processes designed by the groups comprised largely of employees from college campuses.
236
Table 35 Imagination Facilities: Orientation Theme
Sample data
Location in space reification of constellations, maps and other visualization tools, open spaces
State space: None available. Other education entities located in region: None available. Independent college space: None available. Commentaries questioned but did not articulate the relationships.
Location in time – longterm trajectories, lore, museums
Perceived as an innovation within the state. Considered by most as cutting edge and somewhat ahead of its time. Some indicated that the consortium was lagging behind private for profit entities and consortia headquartered in other states.
Location in meaning – explanations, stories, examples
Change agency. Influential on member college practices. Evidence that colleges had harvested knowledge gained in the consortium to make college operations more competitive.
Location in power – organizational charts, process transparency
The abstractions addressing power addressed power flows within the consortium only. Organizational charts showed College Presidents had ultimate authority and were able to delegate power at their discretion.
237
Table 36 Imagination Facilities: Reflection and Exploration Theme
Abstract on data pertinent to reflection:
Reflection: Models and representations of patterns
System Map. Distance Education Blueprint. Organizational Design. Organizational Chart. Student Life Cycle. Communication campaigns.
Reflection: Facilities for comparisons with other practices
Opportunities for benchmarking: (a) National and state norms using the Noel Levitz Priorities Survey of Online Learners; (2) Sloan Pillars of Quality using multiple metrics/indicators; (3) Higher Learning Commission document on online consortia best practices; (4) WCET web audit tool.
Reflection: Retreats, time off, conversations, sabbaticals, and other breaks in rhythm
Occasional in-person meetings. Academic Planning workshops held in summer.
Exploration: Opportunities for trying new things
Numerous pilots. Wide-ranging freedom to change practice by consensus.
Exploration: Envisioning possible futures and possible trajectories
Individual participants expressed strong interest in exploring and planning for the future. Opportunities ranged from staying as is to reaching national/international markets and from being absorbed by the statewide initiative to becoming a leader in shaping the statewide initiative. Sporadically appearing in Board notes were interests expressed in pursuing new markets and in positioning for the future. Discussions were set aside to attend to current operational problems.
Exploration: Creating alternative scenarios, pushing boundaries, prototypes
Prototyping was contained to technologies supporting electronic communications.
Exploration: Play and simulations
Simulations were generated in the prototyping of technologies supporting electronic communications.
238
2. Reflection: (See Table 36.)
Models and representations: The consortium model was represented in the System Map, Distance Education Blueprint, Organizational Design, Organizational Chart, a roughly depicted student life cycle that reflected the experiences intended for students, and communication campaign flow charts that highlighted the intended student flow and promotions.
Facilities for comparisons with other practice: Several opportunities for benchmarking existed: Opportunities for benchmarking: (a) National and state norms using the Noel Levitz Priorities Survey of Online Learners; (2) Sloan Pillars of Quality using multiple metrics/indicators; (3) Higher Learning Commission document on online consortia best practices; (4) WCET web audit tool.
Retreats, time off, conversations, sabbaticals, and other breaks in rhythm: Occasionally meetings were convened in-person. During the study two drivein academic planning retreats were held.
239
3. Exploration: (See Table 36.) Opportunities to try new things: There appeared to be wide-ranging freedom to change practices on the basis of consensus. Numerous pilots had been implemented, and as most were successful or reworked until successful, most had been integrated into everyday practice. Envisioning possible futures and trajectories: Individually, participants expressed strong interest in exploring and planning for the future. Opportunities ranged from staying as is to reaching national/international markets and from being absorbed by the statewide initiative to becoming a leader in shaping the statewide initiative. Sporadically appearing in Board notes were interests expressed in pursuing new markets and in positioning for the future. Discussions were set aside to attend to current operational problems. Facilities for Alignment: Convergence, Coordination and Jurisdiction Data pertaining to the consortium alignment facilities were drawn into tables addressing the features contributing to (Wenger, 2003, pp. 238-239). Presented in Table 37 are data on convergence, in Table 38 are data on coordination, and in Table 39 are data on jurisdiction. Findings: Features Supporting Alignment 1. Convergence: (See Table 37.)
Common focus, cause, or interest: Mission and purposes existed and were commonly embraced. Concerns shared about student recruitment, retention, 240
and success fostered involvement. There was widespread interest in continuous improvement and perpetually occurring innovation.
Direction and vision: There was widespread interest in setting and/or firming up the consortium direction and mission. Numerous opportunities were perceived as potentially within reach. However, tension surrounded the subject and processes had been aborted several times. Concerns about the direction and vision included: Strategies to grow distance while also insulating typical campus markets; interests in institutionalizing current operations before extending the direction and vision; interests in pursuing aggressively several potential new markets; change management issues.
Shared understanding, creed, values, and principles: Consortium planning and operations were influenced by five mainstays: Access, learning effectiveness, student satisfaction, affordability, and faculty and staff satisfaction.
Allegiance, leadership, source of inspiration, and persuasion: Employees participating in the consortium community expressed commitment to studentand learning centeredness. Individuals appeared to be inspired by the possibility of improvement and innovation. The consortium and college communities were influenced by college administration, appointed representatives, their firsthand experiences, and feedback provided from students. 241
2. Coordination: (See Table 38.)
Standards and methods: Core processes and transactions were standardized (E.g., scheduling, registration, and getting started communications and procedures). Concerns were expressed about not honoring deadlines and overlooking the implementation of some decisions made by consensus. Delegated duties were outlined in the Distance Education Blueprint. Guiding the work of groups were charges issued inconsistently. Consortium administration played key roles in coordinating discourse and otherwise independently planned activities.
242
Table 37 Alignment Facilities: Convergence Feature:
Abstract on pertinent data:
Common focus, cause, or interest
Mission and purpose in common. Changes made based on student recruitment, retention, and success. Shared interest in continuously improving system performance.
Direction, vision
Shared interest in setting a commonly embraced direction and vision. Tensions surrounding expanding the market reach.
Shared understanding, creed, values, principles
Access. Learning effectiveness. Student satisfaction. Affordability. Faculty and staff satisfaction.
Allegiance, leadership, sources of inspiration, persuasion
Student- and learning-centered. Inspired by innovation and improvement. Persuaded by college administration, appointed representatives, firsthand experiences, and feedback from students.
243
Table 38 Alignment Facilities: Coordination Feature:
Abstract on pertinent data:
Standards and methods (E.g., processes, procedures, plans, deadlines, and schedules; division of labor; styles and discourses
Standardized scheduling, registration, and getting started communications and procedures. Trouble with honoring deadlines and decisions challenged by reverent leaders at member colleges. Division of labor guided by Distance Education Blueprint and charges issued to groups. Consortium administration played key roles in coordinating discourse and otherwise independently planned activities.
Communication (E.g., information transmission, spread of novelty, renegotiation)
Communication by word of mouth, interactions occurring via technology and inperson, annual and term reports, meeting notes, and formalized processes, procedures, and forms. News on admission/registration was sent to Presidents and other key contacts for distribution at their discretion. No newsletters or other formally issued communication.
Boundary facilities (E.g., Boundary practices, brokers, boundary objects, support for multimembership)
Boundary practices: Meetings, reviews of practice as is, generation of ideas in discussion, negotiated agreements, and consensus. Broker role: Facilitating negotiations between colleges were consortium administrators. Facilitating negotiations between the consortium and college were academic and finance officers, deans, and others appointed to groups. Boundary objects: Meeting notes, formalized processes, procedures, forms, and the consortium website. Multi membership: More allegiance to college than to consortium; difficulties with achieving win-win, if win-lose benefits one’s employer most.
Feedback facilities (E.g., Data collections, accounting, measurements)
Admission and registration reports. Survey data. Incident resolution time. Appeals and grievances. Financial updates.
244
Communication: Communication occurred by word of mouth, through interactions occurring via technology and in-person, via annual and term reports, meeting notes, and through review and implementation of formalized processes, procedures, and forms. Select news (e.g., new and returning students; survey, accreditation, and annual reports) was sent to Presidents and other key contacts for distribution at their discretion. No newsletters or communications to staff were located.
Boundary facilities: Boundary practices included meetings, reviews of practice as is, generation of ideas in discussion, negotiated agreements, and consensus. Broker roles for facilitating negotiations between colleges were attributed to consortium administrators, and broker roles for facilitating negotiations between the consortium and college were attributed to academic and finance officers, deans, and others appointed to groups. Serving as boundary objects were meeting agendas and notes, formalized processes, procedures, forms, and the consortium website. In the event multi membership was questioned, expressions of allegiance conveyed the commitment to one’s college outweighed any commitments to the consortium. Described were the difficulties of committing to and achieving a win-win solution if win-lose solution appeared to more so benefit one’s college.
Feedback facilities: Sources of feedback included: Admission and registration reports; survey data; incident resolution time and other customer service 245
reports; appeals and grievances; financial updates; input received word of mouth; and personal experiences.
3. Jurisdiction: (See Table 39.)
Policies, contracts, due processes: Jurisdiction and due process were set within the consortium Inter-agency agreement (contract) that was signed by Presidents. A hold harmless philosophy and an unofficial policy of win-win were established informally among membership.
Mediation, arbitration, conflict resolution: Attempts were made to settle conflicts among those involved. An escalation system was available to move a conflict from a group to the Chief Academic or Finance Officers or the Business Commission, and if unresolved still then to the Joint Council of Presidents. Presidents attended to mediation and arbitration issues. Enforcement and distribution of authority: As acknowledgement was the first step in the consortium process, enforcement was generated first by informal contact. If compliance or some other acceptable resolution was not achievable the matter was brought to the attention of the chief officers, the Business Commission, and then to the Joint Council of Presidents if necessary.
246
Table 39 Alignment Facilities: Jurisdiction Feature:
Abstract on pertinent data:
Policies, contracts, due processes
Inter-agency agreement (contract). Due process described in inter-agency agreement. Policy of win-win among membership.
Mediation, arbitration, conflict resolution
Attempts to settle conflicts among those involved. Escalation system from group to CAO or CFO to business group to Joint Council of Presidents. Presidential level mediation, arbitration.
Enforcement, distribution of authority
Enforcement via open discussions. Referral system to escalate matters to Chief Academic and Finance Officers. Final authority resides with Joint Council of Presidents.
247
Recommended Changes Data from the documentation review, personal interviews, and open meetings were assessed and compiled. Facilities for Engagement: Problems and Suggestions Presented are sample data on the problems and changes in engagement facilities that were recommended by participants. (Refer to Table 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45.) Findings: Improving engagement. 1. Interactional facilities. (Refer to Table 40.)
Physical spaces: Input implied that developing practice standards that would address the purposes for and regularity of in-person meetings and drive-in events was advisable. Suggested for consideration when writing the standard were: (a) Occasionally conducting meetings in-person for all workgroups; (b) regularly conducting orientations and start-up planning sessions in-person; (c) convening at least one drive-in event per year; and (d) meeting in-person as sensitive topics emerge. Suggestions implied also that developing a guideline for identifying a topic as sensitive would be helpful. Included in the list of sensitive topics were: (a) Visioning; (b) those topics that lacked a set of welldefined operations; (c) policy changes; and (d) other issues of great importance. Likewise, consideration of the personal preferences of the group should impact the regularly of in-person and drive-in meetings. Virtual spaces: Input suggested that moving from a single technology to a suite of technologies that employees could access through a simplified one248
stop would be appreciated. Proposed also were several suggestions to integrate consortium information into the college websites. Moving to a single student sign-on in the student portal was recommended also.
Interactive technologies: Participants individually preferred and disliked varying aspects of the available interactive technologies. Participants were not as familiar or experienced with some of the newer technologies (E.g., live chat, online meeting tools). Some statements from participants reflecting on the experience as a first timer in a group convened via technology implied that first timers in similar situations might benefit from assistance with preparing for meetings and with debriefing afterward. Comments implied that if the consortium was to develop formal communication guidelines that would inform about the consortium communication routines, addressing the following aspects might be advisable: (a) Typical uses of email, telephone and voicemail, video and phone conferencing, online meeting software, and live chat; (b) electronic communication etiquette and other tips for streamlining the process of communicating, (c) accessing training, live demonstrations, and technical help.
Time for interaction: Statements indicated that staff lacing their campus work into consortium work was not provided dedicated time to do so and that staff did not have enough time to read incoming email necessary for preparing sufficiently. 249
Travel: No problems were identified nor were any suggestions located. Mutuality: Joint tasks.
Things to do together: The importance of keeping things to do at the fore was emphasized.
Available help: A suggestion emphasized the importance of leaders providing counsel to staff about: (a) How the consortium assists them in meeting their responsibilities to their college and to students; and (b) the roles and duties of those involved.
2. Peripherality: (Refer to Table 41.)
Observations, encounters, open houses: Suggestions included inviting faculty and others to visit the support center.
Boundary encounters: Recommended were: (a) Clarification of the framework for participation; (b) an increased frequency of contact; and (c) a need for fostering a “call and ask” culture.
Ways of belonging: Recommended were: (a) Development of a new member application process; (b) acknowledgement of the core participants, their roles, and their accomplishments; and (c) acknowledgement and inclusion of 250
peripheral participants working in support positions located at campuses, teaching online courses, advising students about enrolling into online courses, and administering college operations. Located in the comments was one individual’s description of how moving from the periphery to the core had unfolded. Implied by one individual’s experience of moving from the periphery, to a member role, and then to a core member role was the possible need for starting points that might help individuals to anticipate and understand the legitimate peripheral participation phenomenon.
251
Table 40 Improving Mutuality Feature
Problems and suggestions
Physical spaces
Consider conducting in-person meetings more regularly: “Technology is helpful, but we should not overlook the need to build personal relationships by being face-to-face” (#17). “Communication is so important to working together. Sometimes there are issues that can only be addressed well if you get to look into someone’s eyes…if you can get a feel for the nonverbal and body language” (#43). Occasional in-person meetings were suggested for all workgroups (#17, #18, #24, #32), and specifically for the operations and scheduling teams (#02), program faculty and online student advisors (#18), and campus visits made by online support center administration (#41). In-person meetings were suggested also for startup activities that included: The introduction and orientation of new member colleges (#02, #37), new staff orientation (#17, #37), and program advising startup that involves lead faculty and online student advisors (#18, #32). Participants recommended in-person meetings for the more sensitive topics: For discussion of ”visionary futuristic aspects” of working together (#02); for topics that do not have a set of well-defined operations (#17); for policy changes (#24); to meet personal needs (#32); and, to address “issues” of great importance (#43).
Virtual spaces
Opportunities to combine technologies (#01, #02, #10, #13, #17, #18, #21, #30, #32, #35, #37, #38, #41, and #45): E.g. phone conferencing and web access to documentation. Promote using multiple modalities: Email (#01); the distance website (#02); searchable online FAQs (#26); telephone (#32, #35); student portal (#21); meeting in-person at least occasionally (#32). Streamline staff and faculty access to information: Possible reorganization of Sys Doc (#01). Establishment of a portal for faculty/staff (#01). Integration at college websites of content for employee use (#02). Leveraging the RightNow Suite® “to weave the knowledge banks of separate institutions together” (#13). “…one place to look and see important deadlines…an alert section on the website” (#21). Integration of employment data such as that found at www.ISeek.org (#25). Streamline student authentication: One login (#30).
Interactive “It is a time saver for conveying straightforward information, asking basic questions, and technology expressing opinions” (#1S). “I dislike waiting for a reply or the ability to easily clarify (email) "meaning/content” (#2S). “It does seem to work easiest in that even though all parties may not be available at the same time, the information get disseminated and can be responded to at the person's convenience.” (#3S). “I also like the ease of bringing new people into a conversation by cc (courtesy copy)” (#4S). “Dislike junk mail I receive every day. Many, many spam messages” (#5S). “I think email is very convenient and accessible anytime, anywhere” (#6S). “…fast responds (sic).... we travel a lot so this way we know the person gets the emails... phone calls don't always work” (#7S). “It can be done at any time you think of a question to ask” (#8S). “It does seem to work easiest in that even though all parties may not be available at the same time, the information gets disseminated and can be responded to at the person's convenience” (#9S). “I like the efficiency of time management that it presents” (#10S). “Easier way to communicate than playing phone tag which often happens” (#11S). “By my responses you could see that I have not used some of the available choices. E-mail seems to be the most popular I believe” (#12S). “Some of the web technologies for sharing information i.e. web page, eFolio, were not choices” (#13S).
252
(Continuation of Table 40) Feature
Problems and suggestions
Interactive technology (voicemail)
“Sometimes it seems as though a lot of time is spent playing "phone tag", where messages are exchanged over and over and it takes a lot of time to actually talk to the person” (#1S). “Voice messages seem to have a slower return response rate than email messages” (#2S). “The anticipation of when I will get a response from my communication partner. Unless they keep their message up to date it's difficult to expect a return contact (#3S). “It is a communication tool that allows me to move the onus of response to the person called although one is never completely sure if the caller received the message” (#4S). “When greetings are dated you are likely to know if the person called will get the message” (#5S). “Tone of voice gives a clue” (#6S). “Leaving long messages is usually not welcomed” (#7S).
Interactive technology (video conference)
“The reduction in travel is a terrific bonus” (#1S). “Saves on travel - so it can easier to attend meetings” (#2S). “The technology can be awkward, but it saves time and money” (#3S). “I have never used video conferencing” (#4S). “Sometimes people do not have the voice projection (or people skills) and it is difficult to determine who is speaking and what is said” (#5S). “When we started by ITV, it was hard to assess where we get in…how it hung together…I may be understood 15 minutes of the conversation” (#37).
Interactive technology (phone conference)
“It is sometimes very difficult to "take turns" speaking. Since we can't see each other, it is sometimes hard to anticipate when another person will begin talking” (#1S). “I like the immediate feedback with phone conferencing” (#2S). “People often multi-task during calls and are not focused on the call” (#3S). “I really don't use this tool. I've used a couple of times for communication with relatives overseas, but very inconsistently” (#4S).
Interactive technology (online meeting)
"You can share additional content, such as PowerPoint or other electronic files that you can't in a phone or video conference” (#1S). “Use D2L, but not for online meetings” (#2S). “…have only participated in two D2L courses and they were over time... NA for Online Meetings...” (#3S). “Used very little except in a formal coursework setting” (#4S). “Have only done once and really can't comment” (#5S). “I have never used it” (#6S). “I have not used Breeze or D2L to communicate” (#7S). “My use of online meeting is very limited” (#8S). “The tool facilitates an exchange of ideas/knowledge with a fairly large number of people dispersed in wide geographical areas” (#9S).
Interactive technology (live chat)
“I love online chat…I wish more staff/students took advantage of this. It's quick and easy to do links to text/web and a quick interchange of ideas” (#1S). “Questions and answers can overlap - a new question is asked before an initial response has been sent. Not always sure if the other person is still on the chat - sometimes feel unsure about ending the conversation” (#2S). “Have never done” (#3S). “I have never used it” (#4S). “I haven't used online chat much to know. I do like that we can communicate back and forth, but it is very time consuming” (#5S). “My use of live chat is very limited” (#6S).
Time for interaction
No time devoted to distance so it seems like an extra task (#09). “The biggest problem in all the communication is there is not enough time for people to read incoming email. As a result, people are not prepared, they forget their assignments, and they don’t check the documentation. People are wasting their own time and wasting each other’s and college’s time and the time of the people in the distance office” (#34).
Travel
Budgets not addressed.
Things to do together
“The problem is the more removed something is from you, the less you include it in your sphere of concern…out of sight, out of mind (#44).
Available help
“Avoid fighting…sort out campus and consortium roles…help campuses see how the consortium assists their work” (#43). (End of Table 40)
253
Table 41 Improving Peripherality Benefits Feature
Problems and suggestions
Observations, encounters, open houses
“Help faculty (and others) feel invited to visit the center” (#32).
Boundary encounters
(Clarify) “…the framework for participation” (#44). “We need to meet more frequently” (#02). “When groups come together once a month it feels like total strangers are assembling to say how cooperating should occur” (#12). Foster a “call and ask” mentality that encourages individuals to find out what they need to know, to figure out what happened if things do not go well, and to make suggestions (#14).
Ways to belong
Develop a new member application process. Belonging as a core participants were the members of established consortium group: (a) By agency: The core was comprised largely (75%, .75 N) of individuals from member colleges (.33 MSCTC; .15 NCTC; .15 ATC; .12 NTC). The online support center staff comprised 11% of the core, while staff from state system offices and staff from other agencies that partnered with the consortium respectively comprised 8% of the core. (b) By department: The core was comprised largely of 3 departments: service and marketing (.37 N), academics (.29 N), and administration (.26 N). Also shown as participating, but in smaller numbers was staff from the technology department (.08 N). (c) By job: The core was comprised largely of dean/director (.32 N) and service/support staff (.29 N). Also shown as participating but in smaller numbers were faculty (.20 N), administrators (.12 N), and technical staff (.08 N). Belonging as a new group member: “When I first heard of the consortium I thought it was off the wall… When we started by ITV, it was hard to assess where we get in…how it hung together. In an hour meeting, I may be understood 15 minutes of the conversation…As I learned more and began to think, it was doable. My experience showed me the success of the consortium is dependent on people holding it together, learning along the way, and working through problems as they arise” (#37). Belonging from the periphery were: (a) Campus staff who work with students regularly and thereby are destined to help students with online matters at least occasionally; (b) faculty teaching online courses; (c) personnel advising students on course selection; (d) college administration involved in coordinating college operations who are not actively involved in consortium operations.
254
4. Competence: Initiative and knowledgeability: (Refer to Table 42.)
Activities that brought about knowledge ability related to engagement: Recommended activities included orientations for new participants, training tenured members on the anticipated dynamics surrounding the integration of new members, the exploration of certification training for faculty, and training personnel on processes and changes in established work routines. Additionally suggested were periodic interviews with key contacts, and college sponsored activities that would enhance the college community understanding of the consortium and would provide opportunities for processing key issues internally to the institution.
Occasions for applying skills, devising solutions, and making decisions: Increasing the frequency of contact and meeting more frequently were suggested. Perceived as opportunities for engagement were situations for which processes were not established, or for which an incumbent approach process was not working well, or for which an intervention was needed. Problems that engage energy, creativity, and inventiveness: Participants suggested numerous areas in which improvements were needed in: (a) Systems design/development whereby specific suggestions were offered toward the continuous improvement of membership, business planning, human resources, system performance assessment, structuring (calendar), and the communication system. (b) Operations whereby specific suggestions were 255
offered toward the continuous improvement of financial, technology, and academic operations. 5. Competence: Accountability (See Table 43.) Occasions for exercising judgment and for mutual evaluation: The improvement that participants directed toward leadership encouraged leaders to concentrate efforts on vision rather than on operations. Also implied was a need to shore up the safety net that protected students from experiencing unintended consequences from the innovation ongoing in the consortium. Recognizable style: Suggested for improving the openness of communication were: (a) Acknowledgement of the varying purposes of membership in the consortium; (b) fostering candid dialog and learning to deal with agreeing to disagree; and (c) encouraging everyone to assume helpfulness
Negotiation of the joint enterprise: Implied by participants was a need for a strategy to incorporate into relationship-building, the political, historical, and innovative perspectives. Also offered were a set of guiding questions about the state of the consortium enterprise: E.g., Do the policies set up originally still work? Do the academic VPs and deans have the framework needed to do their work? Are the individuals empowered to make decisions attending as expected? Are decisions so clear that conversations about their interpretations are not needed? Is there a risk that without continuous conversation decisions may take on greater authority than was intended?” (#24).
256
Table 42 Improving Competency through Initiative-Taking and Knowledgeability Feature
Problems and suggestions
Activities that bring about knowledgeability of engagement
Orientation and training: (a) “Maybe when someone new comes to the table, a personal orientation by an experienced dean or administrator would be helpful…cover topics like: We have agreed to…This is how it works…Decisions are documented and available at…This is our process of working together“(#34). (b) Prepare new members for dynamics (#49), and prepare tenured members for increased tensions that will likely emerge in the orientation phase (#11, #14, #25, #33, and #34). (c) Assure training is consistent, possibly requiring a certification in teaching online, and fostering the peer review of courses (#45). (d) “Train student service staff on processes and on process changes” (#16). Interviews with personnel: Do periodic interviews with key contacts and stakeholders (#30). Collegesponsored events: Acknowledge that some things could be sorted out inside the member college – should encourage member colleges to involve the “CAO, deans, and student service staff” participating in a “college summit on distance” (#02).
Occasions for applying skills, devising solutions, and making decisions
“Increasing the frequency of contact would help strengthen and clarify commitments to collaboration. We need to meet more frequently” (#02). (It is important to help people understand), “it’s okay to change and move in a different direction if something isn’t working” (#38). “There will be problems, but the point is to resolve them quickly and to use what is learned to make things better and better. Things don’t always go as planned. You have to monitor for problems and adjust as you go. When doing new things or doing things differently, being ready to implement ‘stop-gaps’ is important” (#14). Identify topics that need ongoing extensive communication and plan engagements to address them (#01, #02, #07, #16, #20, #21, #26, #30, #47).
Academic Academic planning: “Well planned out programs provide the ability to see course offerings problems and at least a year in advance (and display) a schedule that demonstrates that 50% of the creative program is available every term” (#25). Joint analysis of course schedules (#43). solutions System problems and creative solutions
System design/development: [a] Membership: Process to handle violation of the foundational agreements (#15); confusion about what the consortium is and how it operates (#21); strategies for leadership continuity (#12, #13, #15, #19, #23, #37, #41, #42, #43, and #44). “We have carried forward different assumptions. Not everyone is on the same page. We need to reaffirm what we agreed to” (#02). [b] Business plan: Extended market (#04, #12, #14, #15, #23, #27, #28, and #45).Undefined approach to program/course duplication and replication and sharing seats in courses (#10, #11, #14). “It is too easy to cut back the consortium and keep only the basics – especially when finances are tight like they are now. We need a method to reallocate revenue so what is available can be put into growth of our future rather than to subsidize outdated approaches” (#04). [c] Human resources: Process for communicating personnel changes (#47); unidentified key contacts at some campuses (#21); provision of student mentoring, tutoring, and counseling services (#39); required training for online teachers (#49). [d] Performance assessment: Assessment and data collection (#36). [e] Structure: Common calendar: same important timed events – e.g., term start, deadlines for free drop/add, early alerts, withdraw, tuition due and drop for nonpayment, grade entry (#01, #06, #07, #15, #18, #35, #39, #41, #47, #48 and #49). [f] Communication plan: Gaps between the consortium office and key contacts at campuses (#21, #30); “…avoid things like differing interpretations of board minutes” (#11); Routing/escalating unresolved issues (#20). (Table 42 continues on next page)
257
(Continuation of Table 42) Feature
Problems and suggestions
System problems and creative solutions (cont.)
Undefined approach to program/course duplication and replication and sharing seats in courses (#10, #11, #14). “It is too easy to cut back the consortium and keep only the basics – especially when finances are tight like they are now. We need a method to reallocate revenue so what is available can be put into growth of our future rather than to subsidize outdated approaches” (#04). [c] Human resources: Process for communicating personnel changes (#47); unidentified key contacts at some campuses (#21); provision of student mentoring, tutoring, and counseling services (#39); required training for online teachers (#49). [d] Performance assessment: Assessment and data collection (#36). [e] Structure: Common calendar: same important timed events – e.g., term start, deadlines for free drop/add, early alerts, withdraw, tuition due and drop for nonpayment, grade entry (#01, #06, #07, #15, #18, #35, #39, #41, #47, #48 and #49). [f] Communication plan: Gaps between the consortium office and key contacts at campuses (#21, #30); “…avoid things like differing interpretations of board minutes” (#11); Routing/escalating unresolved issues (#20).
Operational problems and creative solutions
Operations: “All the little things make a big difference (e.g., course provider, info, teacher, calendar events – tuition due dates, course start, drop/add, etc). If these can be worked out ahead things go better” (#31). [a] Financial operations: Drop for nonpayment procedures and deadlines (#26); book ordering (#01, #07, #21, #37); billing and payment processes, and course eligibility for financial aid (#06, #23, #26, #43); workaround for communicating tuition and fees due to all partners on one statement (#26, #33, #35); [b] Technology operations: Limited or cumbersome access to student data (#03); process for resolving D2L glitches (#16). [c] Academic operations: Admission requirements including clarification on transcripts required for admission (#05, #28, #35); post secondary options enrollment processes (#30); need for an improved student orientation (#17, #18, #21); need to reduce looping (#30); process for sharing course outlines among members and with students/public (#01, #02); process for communicating curriculum changes (#02); process for distributing course seats among members (#06, #14); process for developing schedule - common application of course pre-requisites and registration edits and scheduling deadlines (#01), communication of cancelled courses and late additions to the schedule (#30, #31); satisfactory academic progress standards and processing timelines (#07); use of D2L in the assessment of learning (#36). Revisit or clarify (#9, #26, #31, #33, #41): Re-registering no-shows; satisfactory academic progress calculation and communications; paperless credit transfer; graduation process; reactivating majors in a paperless environment; appeals, including appeals on suspensions; cut score alignment; student record adjustments for partner college courses; role of DARS/CAS in advising; new program setup; provision of communication materials. (Table 42 continues on next page)
Operational roblems and reative olutions cont.)
[c] Academic operations: Admission requirements including clarification on transcripts required for admission (#05, #28, #35); post secondary options enrollment processes (#30); need for an improved student orientation (#17, #18, #21); need to reduce looping (#30); process for sharing course outlines among members and with students/public (#01, #02); process for communicating curriculum changes (#02); process for distributing course seats among members (#06, #14); process for developing schedule - common application of course pre-requisites and registration edits and scheduling deadlines (#01), communication of cancelled courses and late additions to the schedule (#30, #31); satisfactory academic progress standards and processing timelines (#07); use of D2L in the assessment of learning (#36). Revisit or clarify (#9, #26, #31, #33, #41): Re-registering no-shows; satisfactory academic progress calculation and communications; paperless credit transfer; graduation process; reactivating majors in a paperless environment; appeals, including appeals on suspensions; cut score alignment; student record adjustments for partner college courses; role of DARS/CAS in advising; new program setup; provision of communication materials. (End of Table 42)
258
6. Competence: Tools. (Refer to Table 44.)
Artifacts that support competence: Encouragement to prepare the components needed for others to get involved was offered.
Discourses, terms, and concepts: Recommendations included: (a) Integrating a longer range view in planning and coordinating, and discussions on the future; (b) a strategy for encouraging ongoing dialog; and (c) a clarification of the criterion driving decision making.
Delegation facilities: Ideas for improving the automation of seamlessness were raised: (a) Common calendar; (b) information for students and advisors that is more user-friendly; (c) common numbering of like courses; and, (d) strategies for streamlining the generation of instructional materials.
259
Table 43 Improving Competency through Accountability Feature
Problems and suggestions
Occasions for exercising judgment and for mutual evaluation
Leadership focused on vision (rather than operations) (#28). “In pioneering work, the trail is rougher and acceptance that others will reap the benefits from the lessons learned by pioneers is accepted. Yet, we can’t ignore that somebody today is having a rough time. Being driven to find solutions on their behalf is an obligation to be taken seriously” (#15).
Recognizable style
Communication: Acknowledge differing purposes of membership (#04). Challenge of fostering relationships while also establishing a culture accepting of candid dialog and on occasion, agreeing to disagree (#37, #44). “Understanding everyone wants to be helpful and keeping open communication channels is important” (#14). Change oriented: “If you can’t handle change, you can’t work in distance” (#48). “When we couch our bad behavior in turf protection, we aren’t helping the consortium or the students it is intended to service…or even the institutions it is commissioned to help” (#44). “We need to call each other on behaviors…Don’t let them go on and on…Step in and reference the notes from the previous meeting…State this is what we decided already…Ask can we move on…” (#34).
Recognizable style
Initiative-taking: “Encourage individuals to think about and plan out: How do I get information? Who do I connect with on issues? How may I report problems without going through a formal chain of command? Create a system whereby staff can raise questions electronically, so we can figure out what is happening, why it is happening, and if it needs attention immediately or eventually “(#49).
Negotiation of joint enterprises
“The politics get messed up easily…people are so worried about themselves or their colleges that they forget we are about students” (#33). When should political histories and relationships of original members outweigh innovation? “We are at the point that online has grown so much, we need to ask ourselves: Do the policies set up originally still work? Do the academic VPs and deans have the framework needed to do their work? Are the individuals empowered to make decisions attending as expected? (I.e., Should a dean representing a provost be acceptable if the provost is the one making controversial decisions that affect other consortium members?) Are decisions so clear that conversations about their interpretations are not needed? Is there a risk that without continuous conversation decisions may take on greater authority than was intended?” (#24).
260
Table 44 Improving Competency through Tools Feature
Problems and suggestions
Artifacts
“Prepare the components others need to see to get involved” (#13).
Discourse, terms and concepts
“Improving the longer range views would help in planning and coordinating work. Discuss the future so we may each plan/manage our parts and so our supervisors can be more prepared and knowledgeable” (#26). “An ongoing dialog is needed too so flexibility, adaptability, and avoiding potential landmines is possible. The outcome of this would be increased communication, a commitment to live by the rules, an understanding of continuous evolution” (#44). “Currently in the consortium there is too much complaining about someone did this and I did not get my shot…There seems to be a tendency for colleges to reflect on the past and my share, and any changes in the system causes us to push a lot of energy into refereeing. Decisions should be based not on ‘age’ but rather on ‘how innovative’ “(#28).
Delegation facilities (e.g., automation that allows practitioners to focus on more meaningful tasks)
The model which is “…seamless in some ways and not in others” (#37) could be more automated with: [a] Common calendar (#37, #43). [b] Simplified information that students and advisors could use when assessing course needs and options (#12, #39, and #47). [c] “It would be nice to put common numbering in place so students would really know if two courses from different colleges were equivalent” (#47). [d] Improved strategies for generating instructional materials (#23, #28, and #29).
261
7. Continuity: Reificative memory. (Refer to Table 45.) Repositories of information: Recommendations included: (a) Embedding overview information and a gateway to the consortium services at member college websites; (b) directory information for consortium leaders and group members; (c) drill-down presentation of information on how the consortium works; (d) academic clearinghouse that provides information on courses and programs; (e) student information clearinghouse; (f) other important information including
Documentation and tracking mechanisms: Recommended was making the following system documentation widely available: (a) consortium business model; (b) division of duties between the state system, the consortium, the online support office, member colleges and campuses, and faculty, staff, and administrators; (c) consortium academic plan; (d) strategy for revenue and expenditure sharing; (e) values and desired key outcomes; (f) goals, benchmarks, and related evidence; (g) rules and decision-making authorities; (h) commonalities and differences in the participating student body; (i) video footage of students describing their expectations and experiences in the consortium setting; and (j) usage statistics.
262
Table 45 Improving Continuity through Reificative Memory Feature
Problems and suggestions
Repository
Integrate important items at each member college website. “Identify who the leaders are…” (#42). “Determine and publish who to call for what” (#27). Provide simplicity with opportunities for drilling deeper: “While it is important to keep everything as simple as possible, a myriad of details will need to be worked out. You can’t let the details go or people will get frustrated” (#27). Several clearinghouses were discussed (#02, #03, #20, #23, #27, #29, #31). Courses: [a] A schedule and registration report that displays courses available from all members, course caps, seats available to colleges, seats filled and courses instructor contact information – name, email address, office hours, phone number; [b] course outlines for all courses appearing on the schedule; and [c] course syllabi availability during advising and registration periods. Programs: [a] A list of online programs available through the consortium; [b] minimum enrollment benchmarks for online programs; [c] program startup checklist; and [d] repositories of free and inexpensive learning objects. Student support: [a] Access to the full complement of student data from the Integrated Student Records System/ISRS; [b] course term calendar; and [c] important deadlines.
Document tracking tools
System documentation: [a] Incumbent business model underlying the consortium. [b] Explanations of the division of duties between the state system, the consortium, the online support office, member colleges and campuses, and faculty, staff, and administrators. [c] Academic planning and development. [d] Revenue and expenditure sharing. [e] Values and desired key outcomes. [f] Goals, benchmarks, and related evidence. [g] Rules and decision-making authorities. [h] Commonalities and differences in the participating student body. [i] Video footage of students describing their expectations and experiences in the consortium setting. [j] Usage statistics.
Retrieval tools
Develop and promote frequently asked questions/answers for students and for employees (#01, #03, #08, #13, #20, #26, #27, #37, #38, #47, and #49). “Ideally the curriculum would have the same prefix, number, and description. At a minimum, access to information about equivalencies would assist our work with students” (#39).
263
Retrieval mechanisms: Recommended was arranging select content so students and employees could retrieve it in the form of frequently asked questions (#01, #03, #08, #13, #20, #26, #27, #37, #38, #47, and #49). Also suggested was labeling courses with standardized prefixes and numbers to indicate course equivalencies. 8. Continuity: Participative memory. (Refer to Table 46.)
Generational encounters: Creating a mechanism for core participants and peripheral participants was implied, as was creating a flow via which peripheral participants could pursue an appointment to a core participant position (i.e., group member).
Apprenticeship systems: No suggestions on the topic were found in the data. Paradigmatic trajectories: One suggestion pointed toward remedying the challenges of working together by simplifying the systems rather than relying on a communication-oriented solution to ease the challenges. A second idea was to foster collaboration by identifying the areas in which it was a priority and the areas in which it was not a priority or was perhaps not possible. Storytelling: Recommended were: (a) The employment of scenario based communication, and (b) co operatively planned and delivered workshop and conference presentations.
264
Table 46 Improving Continuity through Participative Memory Feature
Problems and suggestions
Generational encounters
“I know a group meets, but I don’t know much about what they do though I would like to know what is going on. No D2L site administrator is involved – perhaps one should be included so info could be shared among (D2L) site administrators from all colleges” (#30).
Apprentice-ship systems
None.
Paradigmatic trajectories
“While communication is helpful, it is far better when the system is simplified. A complicated system is difficult to explain, even if you work within it every day” (#18). “We need to respond to, ‘What activities and processes are needed so we can communicate similarities and handle differences?’” (#26).
Storytelling
Employ scenario-based communications (#33). Co-present items – include member college staff in developing materials and presenting them internally and externally (#34).
265
Facilities for Imagination: Problems and Suggestions Presented in Table 47, 48 and 49 are sample data on the problems and changes in imagination facilities that were recommended by participants. Findings: Improving imagination. 1. Orientation: Location in space. (See Table 47.)
Reification of constellation: Comments suggested that locating the consortium in respect to the state system of public colleges and universities, that state initiative in online learning, and member colleges would be beneficial.
Maps and other visualization tools: The importance of promoting the Distance Education Blueprint was emphasized. Also suggested was offering reports in a more visual form: E.g., diagrams, working models, and flowcharts.
Open spaces: No suggestions on the topic were found in the data.
2. Orientation: Location in time: (See Table 47.)
Long-term trajectories: A suggestion was made to reposition campuses in a stockholder role.
266
Lore: Providing a verbal explanation on important posted or printable documents (i.e., Distance Blueprint) was suggested.
Museums: The financial reports were identified as documents of historical value.
3. Orientation in meaning: (See Table 47.)
Explanations: Two items were identified as needing more explanation: (a) Consortium purposes, and (b) roles of faculty and online program advisors.
Stories: A commentary describing the experiences of an individual who entered the consortium setting in peripheral positions and who assumed a core participant role subsequently highlighted the value of a “hands on” experience.
Examples: Suggested was documenting in plans the relationship intended between the consortium purposes and the proposed activities.
267
Table 47 Improving Imagination Facilities by Locating in Space, Time, Meaning and Power Feature
Problems and suggestions
Reification of constellations (space)
Placement in the state system of colleges and universities, the state initiative in online learning, the member colleges.
Maps and other visualization tools (space)
Orient and reorient individuals to the Distance Education Blueprint (#17). Offer visualizations: “visual report” (#08); “Diagram the model…so staff may envision it more easily” (#37), “working models/prototypes/use cases” (#38), “Stream map the flows” (#49).
Open spaces (space)
None.
Long-term trajectories (time)
Repositioning campuses as “stockholders” was suggested as a means for easing tensions and securing the future (#12).
Lore (time)
Provide verbal explanations on important items: E.g., Distance Education Blueprint.
Museums (time)
Posting annual financial reports may enhance trust: “Did we really lose money, or did we make money?” (#45).
Explanations (meaning)
Consortium purposes: “Understanding why togetherness is needed helps everyone” (#19). “Explain the role of the faculty and the online advisor in the consortium setting” (#32).
Stories (meaning)
“When I first heard of the consortium I thought it was off the wall…as I learned more and began to think, it was doable. My experienced showed me the success of the consortium is dependent on people holding it together, learning along the way, and working through problems as they arise” (#37).
Examples (meaning)
Provide examples of how purposes and action are related (#11, #13, and #15): E.g., State link to purposes in action plans.
Organizational charts (power) Process transparency (power)
“Should there be a size differential?” (#12). Pressures mounting from sharing power between increased numbers of members (#44).
268
4. Orientation: Location in power. (See Table 47.)
Organizational charts: No suggestions on the topic were found in the data.
Process transparency: Tensions regarding the relevance of creating a power differential were acknowledged. Raised was a question about whether the organizational structure of the consortium should depict the size differential between member colleges and whether differential should be acknowledged in decision making.
5. Reflection. (Refer to Table 48.)
Comparison facilities: References to other models (e.g. Arrowhead University) suggested there was some interest in developing a facility for benchmarking the consortium with other select models.
Retreats, time off, conversations, sabbaticals, and other breaks in rhythm: A planning retreat (Distance Summit) was suggested for colleges individually and for the consortium at-large also.
6. Exploration. (Refer to Table 49.) Opportunities for trying new things: Recommended was seeing the consortium itself as an experiment rather than an institution. Also suggested 269
for experimentation were (a) marketplace expansion, (b) serving as a test case for the state system of public colleges and universities, (c) an expanded membership that includes universities in addition to colleges, (d) fully embracing a lead role that is grounded in innovative practice, and (e) the development of entirely new programs.
Envisioning possible futures and trajectories: Suggested were (a) Benchmarking against other similar and dissimilar organizations, (b) establishing a “think tank” that would seek out and integrate outside thinking within consortium planning processes, and (c) using scenario-based planning to foster strategies based on varying proposed conditions.
Creating alternative scenarios, pushing boundaries, prototypes: Suggested were (a) asking questions about potential growth opportunities and (b) exploring different academic models.
Play and simulations: Recommended were (a) exploring possibilities mentally and then in practice, (b) communication plans that disburse information and collect input, (c) using project plans for tracking intentions and accomplishments, (d) establishing an appropriately narrowed scope, and (f) using working prototypes.
270
Table 48 Improving Reflection Feature
Problems and suggestions
Models and representations of patterns
“Institutionalization is encouraged when there is (a) shared ownership for making this happen, (b) staff know and can clearly articulate in a public way the value of what this is…and (c) there is a willingness to put money behind the model…and support” (#19). Enhanced quality assurance; open a discussion and reaching a consensus on the definition of quality instruction (#11, #14, #15, #29, #36, #45).
Comparison
Facilities for comparisons with other practices. References to other models: E.g., Arrowhead University (#22).
Retreats, time off, conversations, sabbaticals, and other breaks in rhythm
Rhythm: Distance Summit for Chief Academic Officers and Deans was mentioned.
271
Table 49 Improving Exploration Feature
Problems and suggestions
Opportunity to try new things
“The consortium is still an experiment. We should try to leverage it as a vehicle for whatever we try…That it was started is good, but some tweaking is needed” (#28). Expanded marketplace: Address market expansion opportunities (#03, #08, #10, #13, #28, #36, #41, and #45). “When things go worldwide we can’t have so much control so being open now is good practice…There is a need to try new things or to try doing things differently and there is a need to figure out how to take theory into practice” (#14). Test case: “We are in a good situation…we have lots of opportunity…model may be transferable” (#43). Serve as a “test case” for deepening institutional relationships in the context of the statewide initiative (#03, #09, #13, #14, #19, #22, #23, #24, #25, #27, #29, #36, and #42): “I wish there wasn’t a consortium; I wish the consortium services were available to the whole state” (#03). “There is a need to look at the consortium replication – If there were other regional consortia around the state that would make us stronger, not weaker” (#19). Expanded membership: Formalize relations with public universities…explore the Arrowhead University Consortium Model (#22). Center for innovation: Spend more time taking more risks and less time worrying about fair shares (#28). Continue demonstrating the ability to take measured risks and to learn from mistakes (#15). New programs: Exploration of new program opportunities (#04, #10, #12, #17, #25, #27, #39, #45).
Envisioning possible futures and possible trajectories
(Ask) “Why? Who is doing something similar and doing it well? How might the problem be solved differently?” (#28). “Scenario planning might prove to be very effective. It doesn’t always provide a back pocket solution but offers an opportunity to strategize based on varying conditions…What if (scenario)? How would it impact this if (scenario with implications on financial constraints, context of new programs, willingness to change management approach)? What would this mean at the strategic level? What would this mean at the operational level (to the mix of courses, to enrollments, to costs, etc)?” (#23). “Injecting outside thinking into the discussions about the educational business is needed. The consortium model needs to and does provide that, but we need more of it” (#28).
Creating alternative scenarios, pushing boundaries, prototypes
“How should we grow this venture?” (#12). Academic innovations: [a] Redefinition of academic integrity in a consortium setting (#11). [b] “What opportunities to improve course quality would be brought up by approaching general education as a commodity?” (#23). [c] Suggested was focusing new programming more on jobs available than on faculty interest in taking online the programs currently offered at campuses. [d] Programs for people already out of college. [e] Programs for incumbent workers and those pursuing customized training. [f] Investigating the possibility of jointly awarded new degrees patterned similarly to Tri-College University was suggested. [g] Stepping to the fore and offering the first statewide program. [h] More globally-oriented study-abroad programming. [i] Consortium offered programs using courses from non-consortium members. [j] Expanding the online college in the high school programming. [k] Developing more cohort programs.
Play and simulations
Embracing a philosophy of asking hard questions and exploring possibilities mentally and in practice (#23). “Throughout the colleges, with our already existing allocation of job responsibilities and workload it was somewhat of a challenge to tackle a new project that required a lot of outside interaction. Good communication made this process easier.. scope…a working prototype was vital to success” (#38).
272
Facilities for Alignment: Problems and Suggestions Presented in Table 50, 51 and 52 are sample data on the problems and recommendations on alignment facilities. Findings: Improving alignment. 1. Convergence: Connecting points. (See Table 50.)
Common focus, cause, or interest: Comments implied that strategies for reducing tension among members were important.
Vision and direction: Clarification of the target customers was suggested. Also suggested was keeping a vision focused on the value of the service provided to the customer.
Shared understanding, creed, values, and principles: While several tools were identified as contributing to building a common understanding among members and participants, also identified was the need for a strategy to integrate decisions into everyday standard business practices of campuses.
Allegiance, leadership, sources of inspiration, persuasion: Recommended for investigation were strategies for responding to opportunities that might otherwise fuel competition, and establishing an operational plan that would support fully the strategic plan of the consortium.
273
2. Coordination: Standards and processes. (See Table 51.)
Processes, procedures, plans: The need for firming up the business framework of the consortium and representing it within a business plan was identified. Also suggested were a training plan and a feedback solicitation plan.
Deadlines and schedules: Developing a strategy for upgrading preparedness for meetings was implied by the commentary.
Division of labor: Comments about the gaps and overlaps in roles implied a clarification on the intended division of labor related to system design, development, and deployment, and delivery of education/services was needed. Relative to administration, requests were focused on clarifying the respective roles of Presidents, Chief Academic Officers, and Deans. Emphasized was the President role in resolving policy issues that were impeding work. Emphasized for Chief Academic Officers were their roles in communicating the needs and interests of their colleges, in developing positions in common, and in reinforcing the value of the work of others. Emphasized for Deans was their responsibility to participate in the groups governing and operating the consortium and to oversee delivery. Academic assistant roles were identified as important also and deserving of clarification.
274
Table 50 Improving Convergence Feature
Problems and suggestions
Common focus, cause, or interest
Tension between founding members and new participants (#04, #11, #14), between larger and smaller colleges (#04, #45), between those leading new initiatives and those joining later (#33, #49).
Vision and direction
Vision: “Keep with a vision of good service” (#13). Direction: “Where are you going? Who are your customers?” (#04).
Shared understanding, creed, values, principles
“Many good starts exist – blueprint, key contacts, policies and procedures made by committee” (#26). “An ongoing challenge is how you integrate decisions with daily standard business practices. The institution needs to commit at all levels – structural and cultural – believing the consortium partnership has enough value to be considered in daily business practices” (#44).
Allegiance, leadership, sources of inspiration, persuasion
Creative strategies: Create approaches for responding to opportunities that might otherwise “fuel competition” (#43). Operational plan: “We need to get beyond flying by the seat of our pants…We are still talking about how we are going to do business. We initially organized while running toward an unclear goal. We need a definitive plan that pushes us beyond personalities and the histories of institutions” (#15).
275
Table 51 Improving Coordination: Standards and Processes Feature
Problems and suggestions
Process, procedure, plans
Business framework: [a] Describe the model succinctly and clearly (#11). [b] Solidify the basic framework in preparation for capitalizing on future opportunities (#38). [c] Harden the design to further increase student opportunity and access to online courses from all members (#14). [d] “It is important to address the whole component of finance, including investment required, expectations, split of revenues and sharing of deficits, reinvestments, etc” (#23). [e] “(I am) not saying that the consortium has been unsuccessful, but (I am) questioning whether the success is from being in the right place at the right time and making things work. To sustain, the consortium needs a business model that is competitive” (#04). Governance plan: Confusion about who is responsible for certain decisions (# 01). Lack of definition on who is in charge of what and where to go for problems (#13). Knowledge management plan: “With new staff coming on board to replace former staff or to serve as added help, there is need to retain and share knowledge. Is there a plan for this?” (#32). Training plan: Frontline staff needs to gain a detailed understanding of how the system is intended to work (#07, #16, #30, #31, #33, #37, #41, and #42). “When frontline staff does not have a full understanding they are not enthused about helping…not knowing makes it harder for them to commit the time and resources to make it work” (#42). “Connect the (service) philosophy to the frontline” (#44). Feedback solicitation plan: Also affecting the capability of frontline to serve the campus student taking online courses was their receipt of information about decisions upcoming and decisions made (#07, #16, #30, #31, #33, #37, #42) and the opportunities afforded to participate in local discussions about process changes and the construction of implementation plans (#33).
Deadline/ schedules
“In scheduling team meetings, the biggest frustration is the lack of preparedness…” (#01).
Division of Gaps and overlaps in roles (#17). More clearly communicate support center roles and college labor (#43). Administration: Acknowledge and clarify the differences in President, CAO, and Dean roles (#11). “There is a lack of clarity in the role and scope of a Chief Academic Officers and Dean. This bogs down decision making. Things feel like a moving target. Saying those who attend get to choose is easy, but when a Dean or CAO can override decisions or some attendees opt out by saying something is a CAO issue, decisions cannot be made or upheld” (#09). Styles and discourses
“The group has not grown into functioning as a collaborative…as one unit” (#12). Strains caused by financial formula changes or other epic changes (#45). “Sometimes discussions need to focus on the original intent so it is easier for everyone to manage their behaviors” (#11). “(Sometimes college staffs)…do not realize that their colleges are making the decisions” (#49). (Table 51 continues on next page)
276
(Continuation of Table 51) Feature
Problems and suggestions
Division Presidents: “…resolving policy issues that impede work” (#43). Chief Academic Officers: of labor CAOs are responsible for revealing the needs and interests of their colleges and in engaging (cont.) each other in developing positions in common that would serve the consortium and their individual colleges (#02, #09, #11, #34). “CAOs are instrumental in celebrations – they are positioned to reinforce the value of everyone’s work” (#34). Deans: “Deans are instrumental in participating fully…and in staying on top of operations” (#34). “Academic assistants need to feel more a part of distance education. They feel left out now and sometimes act as if distance is not part of their campuses” (#06). Frontline staff: “Frontline staff needs to be willing to try new things, to ask tough questions: I.e., Is this the way we do this? Did you mean for students to be affected this way? (#34). Use information about decisions made and decisions upcoming and participate by engaging in local discussions and providing input and feedback (#07, #16, #30, #31, #33, #37, and #42). Campus-based distance advisor: A number of participants proposed that designating a distance contact, advisor, or key coordinator at every campus would help shore up the system and ensure the student experience was more consistent across campuses (#07, #09, #12, #16, #18, #21, #31, and #42). “If a person were named at the campus there wouldn’t be quite so many issues. Campus people would be less scared about distance. The contact could try to change people’s attitudes about taking distance courses” (#07). Some campuses had named a distance contact and/or established a distance help desk; others had not (#07, #09, #16, #47). Improve the service capacity and student experiences by enhancing the online student support available at campuses (#43). “When nobody at campus is named responsible strange things happen. Campus students get disgruntled when they can’t get answers locally, and they won’t call the distance office. For example: At Campus A, an individual working in technology does not officially serve as the campus distance contact, but students are referred to (the individual) regularly for anything that perceived as ‘distance’. The individual does not have or receive all the information needed to fulfill the role of a contact. If all the info were sent, the current job does not provide the context needed to understand it. If (the individual) did receive the info, (the individual) would not think it (was within the) job to help distance students. At Campus B, there is no contact, which is confusing to staff and students alike. At Campus C, there is a contact in place and students at campus receive support from the campus. At Campus D, things are a fight. One campus has a contact, but others do not” (#09). Business management: “Hire a manager to oversee the business – day to day, staffing, scheduling decisions made by administration (seems like the board is struggling to manage the business)” (#12) . (End of Table 51)
277
Relative to frontline staff, an emphasis was placed on their willingness to: (a) experiment with working differently; (b) use the information provided and seek out additional information as needed; and (c) participate in providing input in local discussions about upcoming decisions. Relative to campus contacts regarding distance matters, several ideas were raised. A need to standardize the structure and place an advisor or help desk at every campus was identified by numerous participants.
Also suggested was assigning a business manager function to the consortium. Styles and discourses: Comments indicated: (a) Groups were not functioning fully as a unit; (b) epic changes in finance and business matters increased tensions among members; (c) the overriding style would be improved by referencing appropriately the original intentions of members; and (d) clarification of the decision-making process and authorities would be helpful.
3. Coordination: Communication. (See Table 52.)
Information transmission: Support for a well understood communication system was expressed numerous times. Additionally expressed was a need for a communication system that fostered direct contact between individuals located at different colleges/campuses.
278
Also offered were communication tips: (a) Assume a communication strategy is needed; (b) Integrate just-in-time messaging, simply written content, personalized delivery to individuals with similar job duties but varying titles, and provide an opt out option.
Data on sources and subjects suggested: (a) College administration communicate to college communities; (b) staff should have opportunity to retrieve the information they need from sources other than busy administrators; (c) the benefits of working together should be weaved into communications; (d) personnel updates would be appreciated; and (e) distribution of data on student surveys and appeals would be helpful. Spread of novelty: Suggestions included: (a) Continuously communicating goals, key outcomes, and related data; and (b) Using templates to streamline communications.
Renegotiation: No suggestions on the topic were found in the data.
279
Table 52 Improving Coordination: Communication Feature
Problems and suggestions
Information transmission
Support for a communication system: “Making success requires a tremendous amount of communication” (#27). “Consistent communications are important to viability” (#38). “Communication is so important; we need to lace it into everything we do” (#35). “There is a need to encourage communication across campuses and between faculty and staff located at different campuses, not just between a campus and the support office” (#17). Dissemination tips: “Don’t make assumptions that everyone on campus who should know does” (#37) Offering “just in time” messaging (#03, #23, #26, #38, and #42). Simple messages without too much information (#03). How to target communications when job titles differ (#09). “Sometimes I receive information I do not need…Why do I need to know this?” (#39). Sources: Provide more communication from the top levels of the college to the college community (#02). “Staff does not want to depend on administration that is too busy to communicate the details of what staff needs to know” (#07). Subjects: “Demonstrate and communicate the benefits” (#44). “…keep faculty abreast of personnel changes at the center” (#32). Data from student surveys and appeals (#47).
Spread of novelty
Continuously communicate goals and key outcomes and related data (#03, #33, and #43). Use templates: [a] Make processes and procedures widely available (#02, #03, #27, #30, #32, #37, #41). [b] Create and provide operational planning tools for new members (i.e., “…a complete checklist of things to talk about…a cheat sheet”, #37). [c] Streamline notes, make copies widely available, and avoid differing interpretations. [d] “A listing of who is who and what they do” (#31). Not enough communication about new staff (#32).
Renegotiation
None.
280
4. Coordination: Boundary facilities. (See Table 53.)
Boundary practices: Included in the suggestions were: (a) Continued improvement to and stabilization of the boundaries related to governance – e.g., charges issued to teams; college responsibilities; academic decision making; and (b) branding the consortium and its members uniquely.
Brokers: A suggestion made to brokers was to articulate outcomes and achievements regularly.
Boundary objects: Recommended for inclusion in boundary objects were student-based scenarios.
5. Coordination: Feedback facilities. (See Table 54.)
Data collections: Emphasized were data associated with mission, purpose, and benefits to members. Also suggested was creating simple ways to collect information (e.g., new program checklist).
Accounting: No suggestions on the topic were found in the data.
Measurements: No suggestions on the topic were found in the data.
281
Table 53 Improving Coordination: Boundary Facilities Feature
Problems and suggestions
Boundary practices Governance boundaries: “Now there are teams assigned to functions…The consortium seems better organized now…there has been continued improvements…should continue this into the foreseeable future” (#17). Some things are “my college’s to figure out” (#02). “We should have a ‘Distance Summit’ and review things so we can get on the same page. Involve the CAO, deans, and student service staff…Initially this should be an internal college ‘summit’. Then it should involve the consortium colleges – specifically the individuals that make decisions on courses/staffing” (#02). “If another college put a course out there that my students need, why can’t my students take it? Is my college’s reluctance to let my students enroll into courses a money thing? Why are we developing the same courses that are already offered online?” (#32). Further reduced duplication of effort (#25, #32, #36, and #45). Image boundaries: Consortium branding and unique branding of colleges (#13, #26). Brokers
Articulate some key outcomes and achievements: E.g., “Working together resulted in courses filling to 70% capacity” (#03).
Boundary objects
“Use scenarios…show the problem and promote and explain the student experience. Illustrate how politics trickles down” (#33).
Support for multi membership
“How do we do business as a consortium and as an independent institution? How does the partnership fit within student services? How do we define quality in a consortium setting? How does being successful in these areas as a consortium partnership contribute to the successfulness of our institution?” (#44).
282
Table 54 Improving Coordination: Feedback System Feature
Problems and suggestions
Data collections
Collect data for evaluating accomplishment of mission/purpose (#03, #33). “Create simple ways of collecting necessary information…” (#32). Real partnership – are all members benefiting sufficiently and equitably? (#28).
Accounting
None.
Measurements
None.
283
6. Jurisdiction: Agreements. (See Table 55.)
Policies: Comments implied an audit on the alignment of Member College policies, procedures, and interpretations might be timely.
Contracts: No suggestions on the topic were found in the data.
Due processes: Scenarios suggested that participants were not sure how to intervene when peers complained.
7. Jurisdiction: Resolutions. (See Table 55.)
Mediation: Clarifying the role of Presidents in mediating resolutions to issues of concern and the thresholds that would be indicative of their forthcoming intervention were suggested
Arbitration: No suggestions on the topic were found in the data.
Conflict resolution: Emphasized were a continued willingness to monitor and adjust the business model and a strategy whereby the state system offices could be engaged quickly in problem solving if/when needed.
284
8. Jurisdiction: Compliance. (See Table 55.)
Distribution of authority: Requested were clarifications of the principles by which the consortium operated and the commitments inherent in a membership.
Enforcement: By their identification, enforcement problems implied a strategy was needed potentially for ensuring: (a) Communication with the membership if a change of mind occurred after a decision was made; (b) rationales regarding a change of mind were shared but also used to improve both decision making processes and the decisions made; (c) gaps between what was agreed and what was implemented were closed; and (d) methods for member to out opt and for the membership to remove a partner were established.
285
Table 55 Improving Coordination: Jurisdiction Feature
Agreements
Policies agreements
Increased need to find common ground among differing policies, procedures, and interpretations (#49).
Contract agreements
None.
Due process agreements
What really irks me…is the strong effect a few negative people have…You have to have positive people on board – people who want to make it work. The negative people blame and scapegoat. They let issues fester and they spread negativity through the institution. It doesn’t have to be many negative people to have a widespread effect (#49).
Resolution by mediation
Reasons for intermittent participation were unclear to participants. “Somehow all of a sudden, the Presidents got involved again…someone was apparently not happy…don't know who. Now that the Presidents are taking over again, I don't know what the partnership is doing” (#28).)
Resolution by arbitration
None.
Conflict resolution
“We don’t’ mind taking risks, but we need to know there will be a repair mechanism…The ability of the state offices to provide service and to respond quickly to breakdowns affects the programs of the consortium and affects student satisfaction # (#13). Willingness to monitor and adjust the business model (#04, #12, #13, #23, #43, #45).
Compliance authority
“Independence has created problems. Colleges are free to do their own thing. There are no teeth behind the rules; opting out is easy” (#12). Develop principles and commitments that would assure sustainability in the midst of ongoing change (#44).
Compliance enforcement
When decisions and agreements made in conversation played out afterward as behaviors that suggest the person (President or designee) had a change of mind” (#43) then there is need to find out what happened (#43). “There is a gap between what they say and reality…They come to the table, seem to agree something is a good idea, and the issue or conviction becomes a trickle in the river of their regular work, and they forget” (#09). “There may come a difficult point when a recalcitrant partner needs to get on board, move along, or be replaced with a different partner” (#15).
286
Effects of Involvement Data from the documentation review, personal interviews, and open meetings were assessed and compiled. Effects of Personal Involvement Located in the data were statements that reflected the effect collaboration experience had on appreciation for participation (Table 56), for engagement, (Table 57) and for reification (Table 58). Findings: Effects on participation. 1. Meaning: (See Table 56.) Participants appeared to acknowledge that experiencing their work in the context of the consortium had aided them in coming to understand the benefits provided by the problems and challenges embedded in working together. Presented in the comments was the notion that a rich experience was not necessarily trouble free. Prevailing was the sense that without the challenges and opportunities that were inherent in learning to work together, they individually and their respective college working alone would have accomplished less. The appreciation expressed for the problems and the process of generating solutions seemed linked to the two overriding outcomes of the experiences: (a) Learning more about the intricacies of working together; and (b) the resulting improvements experienced by students. Said one experienced participant of the consortium, “My experience showed me the success of the consortium is dependent on people holding it together, learning along the way, and working through problems as they arise” (#37). Suggested by the participant observations of practitioners who were 287
less experienced was the notion that their lack of experience translated into misunderstandings about how the consortium was intended to work. 2. Practice: (See Table 56.) Participants indicated that the planned aspect of the consortium practice revolved around the scripting of processes whereby the collaborative delivery of an online college experience could occur. Participants described how in participating they had learned to accept the unplanned aspect of working together – the imperfections that emerged as scripted processes were implemented and the problems that materialized in areas for which processes were not yet completed. From the messiness presented in changing their independently operated systems to a loosely linked but well orchestrated macro system, participants had developed a recognizable problem solving practice. The problem-solving routine that was learned by practitioners seemed to involve: Staying alert; monitoring student experiences; reporting potential problems to designated individuals; engaging with others to resolve the immediate issue; and serving on a project action team charged with revising the related processes to proactively prevent future problems. The everyday commitment to continuous improvement that was expressed by most practitioners was represented particularly well in one participant statement,” “I hope we incorporate the findings into our work” (O#2). 3. Identity: (See Table 56.) Participants addressed how their experiences had affected their views of the consortium as an entity, raised questions about the identity of their colleges, and described how they were affected personally by their experiences within the consortium. Commentaries suggested the 288
consortium had matured from a promise to a form of practice, and that continued growth and improvement were an inherent part of its identity. Participants raised questions also about how the consortium becoming a recognizable entity unto itself would affect the identities and futures of its member colleges. The need to help employees identify with the consortium was emphasized and potential strategies for doing so were described. The participants who discussed the effect their consortium experiences had on their personal identity implied they became more aware of their abilities to resolve problems, more aware of the areas in which they might contribute to improvements, and more confident about the value of the their participation. 4. Community: (See Table 56.) Participants expressed how their participation had affected their sense of community. The relationship between shared experience and developing a sense of community was presented in the comments. Comments implied that requisite to belonging to the consortium community was a willingness to change, institutionally and personally. Described in detail by one participant was the developing sense of an expanded community that emerged as the experience of working together amassed: “The model promotes thinking about and considering: If you decide that, how will students be affected? Give and take and compromise are essential. There is a strong need to make decisions that would be different and broader than ones you would normally make because you “want” to participate. The model gets you thinking about stakeholders relative to the decisions you are processing…stakeholders beyond yourself, your institution, 289
and who you typically consider are your students” (#44).Raised by others was the role their experiences involving encouragement, communication, and responsiveness had played in building their sense of community. Also presented in the comments was a question about the effect the number of people involved in the community may have upon the effectiveness of the community. Findings: Effects on engagement. 1. Continuity: (See Table 57.) Participants reported on the experiences affecting their views on the consortium and those of others. Offered were observations on the importance of distributing information regularly, about figuring out the interests and needs of peripheral participants, and about helping others to understand the consortium from the student experience. Also offered in the comments was an observation that not everyone held or would develop a likeminded perspective on the consortium at the same time. However, suggested participants, a likeminded perspective could develop from regularly extending invitations to participate and from encouraging those most involved locally to connect regularly with those least involved locally to discuss the consortium and the opportunities for engaging in its improvement. Emphasized was the need to identify campus contacts and to enhance their effect by engaging them in ongoing conversations and in a training program.
290
Table 56 Effect of the Consortium on Participant Appreciation for Participation Feature Meaning (experience)
Sample data “When I first heard of the consortium I thought it was off the wall…as I learned more and began to think, it was doable. My experience showed me the success of the consortium is dependent on people holding it together, learning along the way, and working through problems as they arise” (#37). “Being involved from the beginning, I can see we have truly made a lot of progress with the “behind the scenes”. From my side things have gone very well” (#14). “Sometimes we can’t see the trees for the forest. We get stuck in what we know. The consortium is beneficial to students and institutions.” (#44). “The consortium is good and has been helpful. Together we have accomplished some things we could not have done alone” (#45). “The vision was right. The timing was right. It was good to make mistakes and learn from them” (#15). “Other unanticipated problems came up…Next time we would be clearer about what we want when asking and then be more assertive in following up using our criteria” (#14). “The experience has been both frustrating and fun” (#44). “There will be problems, but the point is to resolve them quickly and to use what is learned to make things better and better.” (#14). “Collaboration is a matter of trust; earning trust requires time” (#13). “We need to respond to, ‘What activities and processes are needed so we can communicate similarities and handle differences?’” (#26). “I am not the person going to the meetings…not saying I want to or need to go to meetings…but I need to know what is under consideration and what has been decided so I may better serve students” (# 31). Foster a “call and ask” mentality that encourages individuals to find out what they need to know, to figure out what happened if things do not go well, and to make suggestions (#14). “I have found it’s very helpful to students to understand what it is and how it impacts things for them (e.g. division of seating in courses amongst consortium members and what that means for students.)” (#23). “The consortium is serving a lot of students in the region and serving them pretty well” (#15). “Everyone tries to focus on what is in the student’s best interest” (#35). “I believe that many of the campus representatives and other campus staff do not know what the Online Consortium is or how it works” (#23).
Practice (doing)
“We have a good base…need to keep on working through the processes…while also working on the hot button issues.” (#49). “Need to adopt the attitude that ‘change is messy…and always on the horizon’” (#26). “A big challenge is being okay with fixing glitches and not getting riled up” (#49). “…have to give yourself permission to begin. If you are going to be cautious about all of it, there won’t even be a start (#26). “When doing new things or doing things differently, being ready to implement “stop-gaps” is important…Things don’t always go as planned. You have to monitor for problems and adjust as you go” (#14). “At meetings we are pretty straightforward and learning give and take...Hey, we used to be the only ones offering course and now everyone is doing it” (#14). “Being able to address the white elephants is important to making progress; if we aren’t honest or we don’t address them we waste each other’s time” (#24). (Table 56 continues on next page)
291
(Continuation of Table 56) Feature
Sample data
Practice (doing) (cont.)
“We work through things that arise” (#49). “If issues need an immediate resolution, raise the concern with a phone call and then call together a project action team to assess the problem and create a resolution (#49). “You have to able to call and ask, what happened or suggest what needs to be done. Need to feel comfortable calling and asking, what is the deal…” (#14). “Good relationships foster collaboration” (#17). “We need to continue targeting complaints and communicating needs to the key contacts. There is no need to alert everyone. Problems are solved faster when the right people are involved” (#14). “With new people at the distance office…can tell they have been well oriented…they track the flow, know what they can and cannot do, and when in doubt they ask…this helps us be prepared for growth and makes it easier to hand off stuff”(#14). “We assume people at the table know the model and can explain it to campuses – sometimes they can and do, other times they either don’t know or won’t explain” (#43). “In my work, I can’t fix what I don’t know is broken… and seeing what is broken is difficult since so much data is moving across campuses. The distance office helps me monitor the effect of technologies on the student experience and alerts me to problems” (#38). “There is a need to challenge our own selves regularly…Are there too many of courses? Should we take off our offering?” (#14). “Some competition is good” (#17). “I hope we incorporate the findings into our work” (O#2).
Identity “This is a noble adventure” (#37). “The consortium is very effective for future (becoming) implementation of the center” (O#1). “The consortium is growing and getting better…more able to say, we don’t like that, and still acknowledge that others have authority to do as they wish (as do we)” (#14). “Next stage is for the consortium to develop its own processes and governing structures and to get approval from members” (#12). “Innovation will continue to be important…” (#36). “Improving the longer range view would help in planning and coordinating work” (#26). “We need to capitalize on our place in online…lobby for expansion in new areas” (#17). “There is opportunity for us to become a national player in the online world…at the regional levels (multi-state). We could break the barriers and get out beyond just the states surrounding Minnesota” (#42). “If members of the Distance Minnesota consortium were interested in a conversation, my institution would jump at the chance… Would need to get people together in a room to communicate, to envision possibility, to discuss roles and responsibilities” (#22). “How does the model accommodate a future for online and a future for campuses?” (#43). “There is a sense of permanence and individuals are starting to recognize the model is valuable to institutions and to the people we serve” (#44). “Our challenge is that of growing out of our own strengths and pushing the limits so we can become more effective…members have gotten better and better at using the consortium to accomplish goals” (#17). “The groundwork is laid, but again it will take a lot of convincing from many areas to shift the prevailing paradigm…we need campus staff to understand online and to believe in its learning effectiveness… The potential is there…” (#42). Discuss the future so we may each plan/manage our parts and so our supervisors can be more prepared and knowledgeable” (#26). “In my role, fostering collaboration involves a back and forth – interfacing with groups. The task is to move the ongoing development of the relationship between the consortium and the college forward; balance that act with the concerns of faculty who know less about distance education to help them see how distance education benefits students and the college” (#11). “I can handle most problems now” (#10). “There is a strong need to develop a capacity to ‘lead from the middle’” (#09). “My participation of the study will help in future problems of the center” (O# 1). “Participation in the study did encourage me to think about ideas for improvement, especially in the area of communication” (O#2). (Table 56 continues on next page)
292
(Continuation of Table 56) Feature
Sample data
Community (belonging)
“Developing sharing, building commonality, shaping the vision allows for moving forward” (#13). “The model promotes thinking about and considering: If you decide that, how will students be affected? Give and take and compromise are essential. There is a strong need to make decisions that would be different and broader than ones you would normally make because you “want” to participate. The model gets you thinking about stakeholders relative to the decisions you are processing…stakeholders beyond yourself, your institution, and who you typically consider are your students” (#44). “While the state board sets the direction, at the practice level of the system there is a strong need to show, “I am your ally” and to connect the energies of allies (proponents of institutions working together)” (#19). “Encourage you…” (#23). “We need to help people see that change is a good thing…don’t be afraid…change will make things better” (#48). “Resolving things in ways that work for learners is important…Being creative but within the rules helps” (#14). “I am very interested in helping with the project” (#33). “There is a need for everyone to “stay alert” so if one person overlooks something others may notice or when a person is caught off guard others can jump in and help” (#14). “I talk with a colleague at a partner college regularly…” (#30). “The communication with the distance office is exceptional, both the technology they are using and the direct communication with their personnel. I feel confident each time I attempt to communicate, that I am being heard. I always receive returned phone call or email message to resolve my issues” (#41). “Is it possible for a group to get too large and lose its effectiveness? Some resource (e.g., Turning Point/ Tipping Point or Blink) suggest groups of some number of people (150?) are naturally ineffective” (#8). (End of Table 56)
293
Identified as areas in which continuity could be improved were: Communication between statewide initiatives and campus contacts, and direct communications between member campuses. Challenges of maintaining continuity of the online education initiative in a community of a multi-campus college was mentioned. 2. Mutuality: (See Table 57.) Participants reported their perceptions on the willingness of individuals to become involved in the consortium, and emphasized the importance of involving the “right people” in the “right way”. Meetings were viewed to be a way in which common ground could be established and a way in which the brainstorming could feasibly involve the diverse membership. Questions raised about whether consortium meetings focused too much on the business management of the consortium implied that perhaps too little time at meetings was devoted to planning the consortium future. The time invested in meetings was acknowledged and reports from participants varied on the frequency of formal contact that was requisite in governing and operating the consortium: E.g., while one participant proposed that more meetings were needed, another expressed concern about overdoing engagements. 3. Competence. (See Table 57.) Participants acknowledged the consortium had started its existence absent of many models being available for reference and that finding themselves in the throes of figuring out what blossomed into a need to maintain an ongoing dialog. Observed also was the need to ensure that a driver with passion was present among the groups and that the groups 294
appropriately involved staff as well as administration. Additionally identified as important was ensuring that staff was indoctrinated in the consultative role they were expected to play with their peers. Called into question was the rationale used for planning and decision-making and proposed was the need for making decisions grounded in innovation. Also emphasized was a need for establishing a connecting point through which information from meetings could be connected with personnel and practices on the ground. Completing periodic interviews with core and peripheral participants was suggested also.
Findings: Effects on reification. 1. Documentation and tracking: (See Table 58.) The need for translating what people know to easily accessible and reusable information was expressed. Comments implied that documentation such as processes and procedures were instructive to individuals, their supervisors, and to other implementers also. 2. Repositories of information: (See Table 58.) Participants suggested that repositories containing information from all member colleges and located in places practitioners frequented were most helpful. The consortium repository (Sys Doc) was acknowledged and its reorganization was proposed. 3. Retrieval mechanisms: (See Table 58.) A comment implied that a retrieval mechanism that presented information, provided opportunities to engage in problem solving, and offered a means of connecting with others without going through formal chains of command was preferable.
295
Table 57 Effect of the Consortium on Participant Appreciation for Engagement Factor: Continuity (connection)
Sample data: “In collaboration, not everyone will be there at the same time. There is a need to “build out”, to grow in a managed fashion, to put out a call to other schools” (#13). “Keep individuals in the loop about information” (#49). “Making success requires a tremendous amount of communication” (#27). “The people I work with will be interested in knowing this…” (#35). “It helped me to hear from students” (#03). “Not exactly sure how the consortium is setup, but I can offer some suggestions based on my observations and experiences, especially from the perspective of a campus program using some online courses” (#20). “I think there needs to be improved communications between Minnesota Online and the campus representatives for the consortium” (#23). “There is a need to encourage communication across campuses and between faculty and staff located at different campuses, not just between a campus and the support office” (#17). “The internal structure of my college needs to be fixed. When everyone gets a piece and not everyone participates, there is a mutation of the parameters and we end up not being on the same page” (#02). “Campus is fortunate to have a staff member who is taking online courses and is familiar with how the system works… the CAO needs a heads up to the need to handle the growing distance education population that exist at campuses” (#16).
Mutuality (attendance)
“People seem willing to communicate to solve problems and have demonstrated they can work in a consortium model and connect it to other things at campuses” (#38). “Having the right people involved is helpful and having them involve others in the right way is helpful” (#47). “Having everyone at meetings and working cooperatively has helped. We are each routinely assured that we are working toward the same goal and we can leverage each other’s ideas and expertise to get there” (#27). “I think the right people are involved in the consortium (e.g., admin)” (#47). “Hire a manager to oversee the business – day to day, staffing, scheduling decisions made by administration…seems like right now the board is struggling to manage the business…Probably appoint someone from campuses to meet more frequently and get more intimately involved, and position campuses as stockholders, similarly to how businesses utilize stockholders” (#12). “We need to meet more frequently” (#02). “There is a fine line to walk, people want to and should be involved – but you don’t want to overdo it” (#37). “Not a lack of desire…but a lack of the time needed to collaborate” (#29). “I like the flexibility we have. We meet face-toface once and then by PolyCom or a phone conference. If we didn't do it this way, a lot of time would be wasted” (#01). (Table 57 continues on next page)
296
(Continuation of Table 57) Factor: Competence (activities)
Sample data: “There is a need to try new things or to try doing things differently and there is a need to figure out how to take theory into practice” (#14). “If we were starting over, having our ducks more in a row would have been helpful; however, at the time there were fewer models to reference. Today there are many more models to consider – some may be helpful to us” (#45). “An ongoing dialog is needed too so flexibility, adaptability, and avoiding potential landmines is possible. The outcome of this would be increased communication, a commitment to live by the rules, an understanding of continuous evolution” (#44). “Someone with passion who will keep pushing is critical. If left to Presidents or Deans, the system would not be as developed as it is…the passionate parties are most effective when they are not beholding to any one member” (#45). If staff are involved, the effects of decisions could be identified and worked through, or the effects of various options could be better understood before decisions are made…how it will affect things downstream”(#37). “…sometimes decisions are made without asking the input of those doing the work at the colleges. If there would be a way to consult with college staff doing the work before decisions were made it would help” (#47). “Currently in the consortium there is too much complaining about someone did this and I did not get my shot…There seems to be a tendency for colleges to reflect on the past and my share, and any changes in the system causes us to push a lot of energy into refereeing. Decisions should be based not on ‘age’ but rather on ‘how innovative’ “(#28). “Maybe we haven’t done enough celebration about the successes thus far…the consortium has been a great success…we need to look at the everyday headaches in the context of the overall success in which we all share” (#34). “Distance has to become part of the everyday work that goes on at campuses (#06). “I would like to see having a person through the distance office to be on campus” (#07). “Create a distance/online contact at the campus and openly post on the campus, “This is your online contact” so students may get oriented and start solving problems in the environment they are used to and with people they know” (#18). “I talk with a colleague at a partner college regularly…” (#30). “Continue moving forward…moving in the right direction…getting better and better…smoother and smoother” (#05). Do periodic interviews with key contacts and stakeholders (#30). (End of Table 57)
297
Table 58 Effect of the Consortium on Participant Appreciation for Reification Factor:
Sample data:
Documentation and tracking
“With new staff coming on board to replace former staff or to serve as added help, there is a need to retain and share knowledge. Is there a plan for this?” (#32). “Prepare the components others need to see to get involved” (#13). “Improving a lot…more in the last year…or maybe everyone is getting more educated on who is doing what” (#30). “Write out processes and procedures…this is so necessary…we are very dependent on knowledge that is stored in people’s head…if this person were going to be gone tomorrow, we would be in trouble – not knowing what to do or how to do it” (#49).
Repositories of information
“General information sharing is very important. Typically people don’t dig for information; they want it served to them in places they frequent” (#25) “Different colleges do things differently and we need a place to look and find out what is similar/different/changed” (#21). “Sys Doc works well. I go there to find information that I need or may have misplaced. We should look at the organizational structure of that area of the website” (#01).
Retrieval mechanisms
“Encourage individuals to think about and plan out: How do I get information? Who do I connect with on issues? How may I report problems without going through a formal chain of command?” (#49)
298
Implications of Implementing Proposed Infrastructure Improvements Data from the documentation review, personal interviews, and open meetings were assessed and compiled. Statements were grouped into five themes: Communitybuilding opportunity; virtual place; representations and artifacts; practice; and, capabilities. (See Table 59.) Findings: Probable effects on shared practice. 1. Community-building opportunity: (See Table 59.) Commentaries addressed the informational value of the proposed Network Center and its limited value relative to social networking. Comments implied the proposed Network Center would provide participants with a broader view of the consortium community, increase participant access to the information needed in community work, and create an opportunity to orient new participants to the community. Also identified as possible outcomes of implementing the Center were strengthened ties between online faculty and peers across the consortium. Emphasized also were need for a Network Center facilitator and need for marketing the site so people would know about its existence. 2. Virtual place: (See Table 59.) The virtual place, proposed in the form of a Network Center, was characterized as a “one-stop” and was appreciated for its probable utility. Questions about the technologies that would be incorporated in the Network Center implied that some users would be more attracted to the Network Center if it accommodated multi-media (e.g. audio, video, chats in text and in voice over the Internet protocol, and blogs).
299
3. Representations and artifacts: (See Table 59.) Comments about the Network Center serving as the one resource area for practitioners seeking general information and insights for solving problems in practice implied the site would help users feel more informed and make more informed decisions. Additionally, a comment about the Network Center serving up the current copies of documents in draft implied that practitioners might use the site to streamline document management and perhaps thereby invest more time in conversations and group work. 4. Practice: (See Table 59.) Several potential effects to practice were acknowledged in the commentaries. Concerns were raised regarding the effect of the Network Center on: (a) Future willingness to conduct some meetings in person; (b) reviewer/user and site coordinator time; (c) whether or not reviewers/users would be attracted to the site; (d) interruptions to the established flow of communications; and, (e) the need for a “netiquette” that was embraced consortium-wide. 5. Capabilities: (See Table 59.) Participants identified improved capabilities that might result from implementing the proposed improvements: E.g., Identification with the three Centers encompassed in the Network Center; the increased opportunities for interactive ongoing dialog; the potential of more well organized information and the consistency its use might bring about; and, the decreased time needed to manage communications and documents.
300
Table 59 Probable Effects to Shared Practice from the Proposed Infrastructure Improvements Impact:
Sample data:
Communitybuilding opportunity
“How would people get oriented to the center? An orientation would be quite important (A#2). “I would really welcome the creation of a formal orientation program for employees who are members of the consortium” (O#2). “It looks like a pretty valuable tool, but it won’t be much of a social space” (A#2). “I think it would broaden what is already in place and make things easier for many people involved” (O#3). “People will need to know about this…. Need to let people know it is available. A national association I am involved with does a nice job of marketing to its members, and has gotten its membership more involved because there is a one stop for them and because they know it is there” (A #4). “A most interesting dimension is the opportunity this creates for online faculty to interact with other online faculty. New online faculty could learn from experienced online faculty. I would like to see this element be a main focus” (A#1). “Having a mentor to facilitate the discussions would help” (A#1).
Virtual place
“This has a one-stop shopping concept that I like” (A#4). “Yes - it looks like it will be very useful in the future” (O#3). “Would the chat and meeting options be a traditional typed text chat? I would prefer voice over typed text. I type slowly and maybe other people do too. A voice chat would not involve typing” (A#2). “Some of the newer technologies allow for voice snippets so meetings could still be asynchronous but involve voice. It would operate like a blog with audio clips” (A#2).
Representations and artifacts
“This would create one resource area where you can go to find out what you need to know” (A#4). “I think I now have a resource (the findings) to use to prioritize problems in such a way that will also be meaningful to all members of the consortium” (O#2). “Nice job!” (#O3). “The site would be dynamic and present the latest dated revised copy that would supersede other versions from floating around” (A#3). (Table 59 continues on next page)
301
(Continuation of Table 59) Impact:
Sample data:
Practice
“Curious about whether the vehicle would be in replacement of face-to-face or would be a way to create ongoing contact” (A#1). Voice is nice, but would that limit the use to synchronous meetings?” (A#1). “The time factor could be a problem. It is easy to ignore email and it would be easy to ignore a communication center. How much work will it take to keep the site current? If it is not current, people will not come back after their first visit. What will happen with the feedback people post? How much will people use it?” (A#1). “To problem solve using this requires a different kind of process. For example, do you collect info for 3 days, post summarized recommendations, and then people vote?” (A#1). “Discussions should be time dated…maybe open on Monday, post to Thursday, summarize on Friday… “(A#1). “Rather than putting Presidents on it, create a pattern around “netiquette”: What are the expectations for posting? Do I need to keep it to 250 words or less? Do I need to cite sources?” (A#1). There would be value in doing a virtual posting of issues that could be discussed. E.g., How do you handle x-y-z with students?” (A#1). “This could focus on posting online teaching tips” (A#1).
Capabilities
“The centers and the opportunity for interactive dialog are the most interesting” (A#1). “The DEMO prototype of the online communication center was very effective” (O#1). “The organization of information is attractive. A challenge now is to know where you can find information. You probably know there is info out there, but where is the question. This kind of organizational tool would give everyone a set of consistent information, and the problem of varying versions of drafts being out there would be gone. We are all probably keeping our own copies in a file, but time is wasted scrounging around to find the latest copies” (A#3). “Unintended consequences? None“ (A#1). “No concerns or negative impacts that pop out” (A#2). (End of Table 59)
302
Effects on Further Developing Shared Practice Data from the documentation review, personal interviews, and open meetings were assessed and compiled. A few statements located in the previously presented data tables implied that participants envisioned their participation in the study aimed at improving the consortium collaboration infrastructure had immediate and future value. Findings: Forecasted effects of future participation 1. Productivity and collegiality: In the commentaries there appeared to be an overall sense that personally participating in designing, developing, deploying, and using an improved infrastructure had proven the return on the time invested had benefited the consortium, the member colleges, practitioners at-large, and individuals personally. Some comments appeared to imply the proposed infrastructure would create new ways for participants to engage their communities of interest with others in the consortium (e.g., faculty to faculty connectivity). 2. Continuous improvement: Participants seemed to agree that the proposed improvements to the collaboration infrastructure that were represented in the prototype of the Member Network Center responded to a suggestion made in the early part of the study: “Create a system whereby staff can raise questions electronically, so we can figure out what is happening, why it is happening, and if it needs attention immediately or eventually “(#49). After reviewing the prototype, a participant offered the following observation: “I think I now have
303
a resource (the findings) to use to prioritize problems in such a way that will also be meaningful to all members of the consortium” (O#2). 3. Continued participation: Comments received in the evaluation suggested that the implementation would have positive effects on participation: “I think it would broaden what is already in place and make things easier for many people involved” (O#3). Another participant (A#4) recounted how a national organization membership introduced her to the value of a one-stop and how frequenting the one-stop had appeared to increase member involvement in the association. 4. Opportunities for clarification: Data from the in-person and online open meetings implied that the process of constructing the Member Network Center would provide opportunity to address and clarify issues that were identified in the course of the study. E.g., “I would really welcome the creation of a formal orientation program for employees who are members of the consortium” (O#2). “Yes, it looks very useful into the future” (O#3). 5. Personal contribution: A few individuals directly addressed the issue of their personal participation: “My participation in the study will help in future problems of the center” (O#1). Continue doing periodic interviews with key contacts and stakeholders (#30). “Participation in the study did encourage me to think about ideas for improvement, especially in the area of communication. I hope we incorporate the findings into our work” (O#2).
304
Patterns in the Qualitative Data Findings: Noticeable patterns. 1. Coexistence: A virtual team and a community of practice may coexist. Data implied that similarly to a virtual team, the consortium: (a) Accommodated different operating schedules; (b) existed and operated on the basis of a formal arrangement and a prescribed form of governance; (c) embraced grouporiented planning and decision-making; (d) depended on interactive communications technologies to help mitigate the limitations of distance, time, and financial and other resources; (e) demonstrated structuring was responsive to lessons learned in the experience of working together and to the influences of the macro environment; (f) involved appointees working in groups; and (g) depended on generating and applying tacit knowledge. Data implied also that similarly to a virtual community of practice, the consortium: (a) Congealed around a structure comprised of a shared domain (i.e.., the collaboratively-delivered online college experience), a community of people, a shared practice, a set of core capabilities, shared representations/artifacts, and commonly frequented spaces/places; and, (b) operated through a collaboration infrastructure that provided facilities for engagement, imagination, and alignment. 2. Symbiosis: Relationships nurtured in the informal context of a virtual community of practice contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of decisions made by formally convened virtual teams. Data suggested that while decisions were made in formal team settings, successfully implementing them 305
in practice was worked out in the everyday interactions between practitioners. Data implied that contacts between practitioners as they worked together to address student interests and resolve their issues had contributed to an increasing sense of a shared purpose. 3. Developmental Nature: When presented with a probable valued outcome, ongoing opportunities to interact, the time needed to develop shared experiences, and individuals willing to act as brokers, practitioners will eventually develop a collaborative model that is customized to their circumstances. Data implied that practitioners at-large were appreciative of the benefits generated from acting as a virtual team and from acting as a virtual community of practice. Although practitioner-participants appeared to be committed strongly to continuously learning to work together more effectively irreverent of any particular organizational model, a movement to consciously pursue the replication of either a virtual team or virtual community of practice model was not apparent. 4.
Adaptive: Vitality and sustainability of a consortium are influenced by its capability to continuously recalibrate the balance of organizational formality and fluidity. Data showed the governance structure, which included a board, a process team, and several other workgroups formed through an appointment process, was largely organized and operated similarly to a virtual team. Data showed the operational structure, which encompassed workflow that occurred between the staffs at campuses and at the support center, was predominantly organized and operated similarly to a virtual community of practice. 306
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter recaps the study, and offers results, conclusions and recommendations. The results section synthesizes and interprets the findings identified in Chapter 4. The conclusions section discusses the results in context of the central question under investigation and the literature. In the recommendations section, practical suggestions for using the results within the Distance Minnesota setting are offered, as are recommendations on future research. A Recap of the Inquiry Implemented in the context of an online 2-year college consortium (i.e., Distance Minnesota, n.d.), the study was directed toward identifying processes and features to improve the collaboration infrastructure. The study investigated the relationship between the infrastructure of the consortium and the development of “common ground” (Brennan & Clark, cited in Resnick, Levine & Teasley, 1991, pp. 127-149). The problem under investigation was situated in the context of “transactional distance”, the physical and psychological space between practitioners from the eight sites comprising the consortium (Peters, 1969) and the differing “life-worlds” of the consortium practitioners who were governing and operating the entity (Berger, 2000). In situating the study, similar problems and related topics found in the education and business genre of the literature were reviewed. The literature on interorganizational cooperation in education (Baus & Ramsbottom, 1999; Duin et al., 2001; Moran & 307
Myringer, 1999; USDOE, 2003) and studies of contemporary American educational consortiums provided perspective (Fulmer, 2002; Johnson, 2005b), as did discussions on cooperation theory and recommendations regarding the structuring of cooperatives (Fairbairn, 2003; Garoyna & Mohn, 1976; ICA, 2005, 2007; NCBA, n.d.). Also informative was the literature addressing the concepts underlying knowledge generation and management, and the organization and operation of socio-technical organizations, teams, and communities of practice (Hildreth, et al., 1998; Hildreth et al., 2000a; Kimble et al., 1998a, 1998b; Kimble et al., 2000; Kimble & Selby, 2000; Lessor & Storck, 2001; Hildreth, 2000; Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003; Strock & Hill, 2000; Wenger, 2000 & 2003; Wenger & Snyder, 2000; Wenger et al., 2002). Adding more insight were inquiries that related socio-technical organizations with distance education (Na Ubon & Kimble, 2002), identified issues arising when memberships were held in places and spaces that were not integrated (Kimble & Selby, 2000), described patterns of community emergence (Kimble 1998a, 1998b), typed teams and the root causes of problems experienced within the varied forms (Kimble et al., 2000), proposed strategies for fostering soft knowledge development (Hildreth et al., 2000a, 2000b; Hildreth & Kimble, 2002; Hildreth, 2000), and described the current status of artificial intelligence (Abdullah et al., 2002). As the nature of the problem related to field theory in which behavior is a function of the person and environment (Lewin, 1948), the study was patterned after other studies that illuminated the understandings of participants in order to extend knowledge, to improve practice, and to change the organization (Saavedra, 1994, 1996; Heron, 1996). Three studies influenced the design: Hildreth's (2000) investigation of virtual communities of practice that was completed in a business with sites located 308
worldwide; Fulmer's (2002) inquiry into the startup of the Southwest Virginia Higher Education Center; and Johnson's (2005b) research on the functioning of the Iowa Community College Online Consortium. Specifically, the investigation was organized around the science involved in practical action research (Elliot, 1991) and methods prescribed for participatory case studies involving researchers acting in collaboration with other insiders (Coghlan & Brannic, 2005; Herr & Anderson, 2005; Johnson, 2005a; Kinchloe, 1991; Sagor, 2005; Schmuck, 2006; Stringer, 2004; Zuber-Skerrit, 1992, 1995). The three-phase investigation integrated procedural recommendations from Borg et al. (1996) and several authorities on action research (Coglan & Brannick, 2005; Herr & Anderson, 2005; Johnson, 2005a; Sagor, 2005; Schmuck, 2006). Subsequently data on the lived experiences of individuals participating in consortium governance and operations were gathered and assessed. The variance in quantitative data was analyzed and data sets meeting or exceeding a 95% confidence level were considered. To minimize undue influences of the researcher who as an insider on the collection and analysis of qualitative data drawn from transcripts of semi-structured personal interviews and two open meetings attended by groups, the design incorporated opportunities for anonymous submission, events that collectively resulted in prolonged engagement, the help of an external facilitator, persistent observation, triangulation, participant debriefing, diverse case analysis, referential adequacy, and member checks of thick descriptions and the developing report. Findings were synthesized and results are presented herein as thick descriptions that represent the practical wisdom uncovered in the course of the study.
309
Results Results are presented in the context of the research questions. Question One Result: Operating as a Team or Community The formal context of the consortium, which enveloped governing and operating groups (i.e., board, process team, project teams) resembled a network of virtual teams. However, the informal everyday work, which enveloped interactions occurring between co-located and remotely-located colleagues, resembled a constellation of communities of practice that were operating at varying levels of sophistication. Assertion One and Supporting Rationale The online inter-institutional consortium resembled a socio-technical organization. The rationale supporting this assertion was explained in the findings that collectively demonstrated: 1. The formally-instituted socially-oriented governance structure and operational system were stipulated in a founding agreement, demonstrated in the documented planning and decision making processes of groups, and affirmed in the descriptions gathered from practitioner-participants. 2. Participants reported that solving problems experienced in the course of everyday work more frequently involved consulting with local and/or remotely located colleagues than consulting websites or printed materials. 3. Conditions created by virtue of a membership that spanned the northwest quadrant of the state were not conducive to conducting the business of working together through traditional means and did not detract from the membership developing technology-dependent conventions. 310
4. Collaborative processes threaded into the work of formally convened groups and into the culture of daily work were made feasible by technologies, which mediated physical distances between member campuses that otherwise translated to individuals from the furthest distances traveling a minimum of 3 to 5 hours to consult with remotely located peers or to participate in formally convened groups. 5. While originating documents implied gatherings would occur but did not stipulate a particular forum, records showed that most meetings were convened by technology, and reinforced by participants was the necessity for meeting virtually due to time and travel constraints. 6. Participants emphasized the need for reserving in-person meetings for three specific activities: (a) Occasionally refreshing the energies of long-standing groups; (b) starting new relationships (i.e., introduction and orientation of new member colleges, new staff orientation, program advising startup); and (c) addressing sensitive topics (i.e., visioning, topics that do not have a set of well-defined operations, policy change, issues of great importance). Assertion Two and Supporting Rationale While not integrated fully with the independently operated college governance structures or as formalized as a cooperative business model, formally convened group work of the online inter-institutional consortium identified closely with a complex virtual team. The rationale supporting this assertion was explained in the findings that collectively demonstrated:
311
1. The consortium superstructure spanned four different organizations, three affiliated agencies, and fourteen different sites. 2. The observable differences in operating schedules suggested that teamwork dependent upon traditional interactivity had to occur within a 32-hour period of the week. 3. The consortium was formally organized, although only loosely integrated with member colleges. 4. The consortium was oriented toward group planning and decision-making. 5. The consortium depended on technology to support communication and to make feasible the group work requisite to functioning collaboratively. 6. The consortium structuring directed by member college presidents seemed sensitized to changes in college priorities, to perceived emerging needs of staff and students, and to lessons learned from experience. 7. Standing groups were comprised of individuals appointed by college officials (i.e., officially designated representatives), while project teams were comprised of those who responded to invitations issued to the consortium community of practitioners (i.e., communities of interest). 8. Participants acknowledged and appeared to value that tacit knowledge was gained in the process of working together. Assertion Three and Supporting Rationale While the formally structured groups that governed the consortium and guided operations were more like a complex virtual team than a community of practice, the socially-oriented work style of participants identified with a developing community of 312
practice whereby interests in the elements that founded the community and sophistication of the community varied by agency, department and job type. The rationale supporting this assertion was explained in the findings that collectively demonstrated: 1. A majority, two-thirds of respondents (.667 N), reported community-oriented behaviors. Most prevalent among respondents were behaviors that aligned with basic stage 1 (.334 N) and secondarily with behaviors indicative of the most sophisticated community of practice, an integrated stage (.194 N). 2. The most sophisticated elements of the community were located in seven units, while six of the remaining units operated largely at the mid-range and the least sophisticated elements of the community were prevalent in two units. Behaviors indicative of the most sophisticated integrated stage four community were evident among half or more of participants from seven units: (i.e., four agencies – three colleges including ATC, NCTC, NTC; others/partners; two departments – academics, administration; one job type – dean/director). Mid-range communities (i.e., stage two and three) were apparent among half or more of participants from five units: (i.e., respectively, two agencies – support center, state office; and, one department – marketing/service; one department – technology; and, two types of jobs – technical and support/outreach). A developing pre-stage one community was evident among half or more of participants from two units (i.e., one agency – MSCTC; one job type – faculty). 3. The elements that comprise a community of practice (i.e., domain, community, capability, practice, representations/artifacts, and spaces/places) 313
were not consciously acknowledged by practitioner-participants, but were evident in participant descriptions of the activities and concerns presented in the course of daily work. Attention was directed primarily toward nontechnological and primarily involved aspects of domain, community, and capabilities, and within these – mission and purpose, position in practice, and the relationship between the membership and the member as an independent institution. a. Domain: The domain, collaboratively delivered online education, was delineated through descriptions of purpose, mission, membership, collaboration, governance, member relations, business model, curriculum strategy, and position in practice. b. Community/People: Identified as affecting the community were personal and leadership qualities, the level to which key players were involved (i.e., campus academic departments/faculty; campus staff; support center staff; administration), and how well roles of key players were clarified and consistently implemented. c. Capabilities: Twelve mechanisms were associated with the capability of the practice community: (a) Formal agreements that stipulated foundational relationships (i.e., revenue and expense sharing; process for contract review/change; clinical usage; materials and books; responsibilities of member colleges and the consortium office; dispute resolution process; exit opportunities); (b) networked action-oriented groups; (c) widespread commitment to continuous improvement; (d) 314
focus placed on meeting student and stakeholder needs; (e) technological and non-technological communication forums; (f) facilitation services; (g) engagement-oriented decision-making practices; (h) participation via appointments and volunteerism; (i) prevailing sense of ownership; (j) shared commitment to system simplification; (k) dedication to solving problems; and (l) interest in managed change. d. Representations/artifacts: An appreciation for access to information on how to complete work was expressed, as was a widespread interest in compiling the worker-related information currently available in partial form from: (a) Multiple interactive channels for accessing experts and key contacts at the colleges and support center (i.e., phone, live chat, ask a question, email); and, (b) self-serviced repositories of codified information (i.e., college websites, consortium website, searchable knowledge banks, sys doc, student portal). e. Spaces/places: While a comfort level with meeting virtually and an appreciation of efforts to minimize time and travel constraints were evident, the importance of convening in person to address startup (i.e., orientation, new program startup) and sensitive topics (i.e., visioning, topics that do not have well-defined operations, policy change, issues of great importance) were emphasized. 4. Interests in elements that were non-technological, an orientation toward tacit knowledge, implementation of a synchronized workflow, and interest in the 315
future were more predominant and widespread than were interests in the elements that were technological, underlying physical connectivity or oriented toward codified knowledge. 5. Interests varied by agency, department, and job type; however, an interest in all elements was noticed among five units (i.e., two agencies comprised of a college, MSCTC, and the support center; two departments marketing/services and academic; one job type - dean/director). 6. Domain-related topics received varied attention from agencies, departments, and job types: While the most overall attention was paid to the topics of consortium position in practice, mission and purpose, and membership, three units addressed practice, mission and purpose, and membership (i.e., one agency – MSCTC; one department – marketing/services; one job type – dean/director). In contrast, the least overall attention was paid to enactment of collaboration, governance, business model, and curriculum strategy, which were addressed primarily by two units (i.e. one agency – MSCTC; one department – academic). Assertion Four and Supporting Rationale While the virtual team existing in the online inter-institutional consortium originated in the formal design and the community of practice originated in the selfinitiated and self-directed activities of individual practitioners, and while it seemed that their relationship was complementary, it was unclear which had emerged first – the team or the community. The rationale supporting this assertion was explained in the findings that collectively demonstrated: 316
1. Although the consortium was formally structured and operated similarly to a complex virtual team, the majority of practitioner-participants did not appear to engage solely in formal teamwork and reported frequently engaging in informal activities that were indicative of a community-oriented practice. 2. While some participants believed that a pre-existing sense of community lead colleges to developing a formal relationship, others suggested that only when a formal consortium structure was in place did the sense of community develop. 3. The incumbent virtual community of practice was comprised largely of behaviors that implied participants had not progressed to integrating fully the work of the college (i.e., physical workplace of the independent college work where the participant was located) with the work of the consortium (i.e., collegial relationships with individuals from other sites/colleges who also participated in virtually accessed inter-institutional governing and operating groups). Question Two Result: Collaboration Infrastructure Assessment The collaboration infrastructure encompassed the prescribed facilities, and of these, the engagement facility was most prominent and seemed most developed, while the imagination facility was most distinctive and seemed most central to fulfilling the explicit mission of the consortium, and the alignment facility seemed to be the most underdeveloped and drew the most criticism.
317
Assertion One and Supporting Rationale Evidence of factors contributing to mutuality, competence, and continuity implied that facilities for engagement existed and were functioning. The rationale supporting this assertion was explained in the findings that collectively demonstrated: 1. A system for developing mutuality was implied by evidence documenting joint tasks, interactional facilities, and ways of handling peripherality existed. a. Joint tasks were generated around five things that triggered participation from practitioners at varying sites (i.e., choreograph academic, outreach and support, and technology processes; produce the intended online college experience using a script comprised of processes, procedures, technologies; resolve boundary issues impeding students; improve access, learning effectiveness, student satisfaction, cost effectiveness, and faculty/staff satisfaction; identify and refer problematic policy discrepancies) and were supported with three types of tailored help (i.e., help for students accessed from the support center and/or campuses, help for employees available from generalists at the support center and specialists at campuses, and group facilitation help provided by consortium administrators). b. The interactional facility was grounded in a participation expectation, appointments and volunteerism, two interactive forums, and a network comprised of physical spaces and virtual places. The consortium agreement obligated members to naming individuals to participate in formal consortium activities. Frontline staff from campuses and the 318
support center, experts from functional areas, and managers/administrators who were appointed formally and others who attended voluntarily invested time and energies in developing and implementing strategic and operational plans. Two forums engaged individuals in the consortium: (a) Everyday interactions between pairs or small informal groups; and, (b) centrally planned and coordinated group work. Connectivity occurred via an interactional network that encompassed physical places (i.e., eight campuses; one learning center located off-campus; consortium office/support center) and virtual spaces (i.e., email; phone; voicemail; video conferencing; telephone conferencing; online meetings; live chat; ask a question). c. Peripherality was tempered by a continuum of role-based opportunities that ranged from observing the consortium at work to engaging temporarily or permanently in group work addressing a compelling personal interest. Students, providers, and stakeholders were afforded different ways of belonging to the community: (a) Direct participation, (b) indirect participation, and (c) consultant advisor. The foremost way for individuals on the periphery to observe the consortium work was through visits to websites, and secondarily through the lived experience of co-located colleagues who operated at the community core. Additionally, opportunities to learn about the consortium were embedded in presentations made at campuses and at state and national conferences, and through reviews of a limited amount of print media. 319
Whenever students or staff encountered boundaries that impinged upon seamlessness, typically participants were drawn from the periphery into encounters that were focused on resolving gaps and overlaps affecting students (i.e., institutional policies, procedures, forms, and workflow). Sometimes the experience of engaging over a specific matter lead the participant to join a standing group or to remain unattached but more attentive to matters under consideration and more willing to offer input to core participants. 2. A system for developing competence was implied by evidence of initiative taking and knowledgeability, accountability for shared work, and timesaving tools. Competence was fostered by participation in: (a) Governing and operating groups; and, (b) provision of direct support to students participating in online learning. Competence also developed in the context of resolving problems. Participants felt accountable for implementing seamlessness and accepted responsibility for monitoring feedback in order to: (a) Act on problems arising from differences in the cadences of campus-based operations that were not set in policy; and (b) describe and refer problems arising from gaps and overlaps in institutional policies to administrative officials for review and potential action. Fluent participation involved gaining a command of constructs and terminology that were used across the state system, but also demanded participants to interpret the state system constructs in the context of the consortium and to learn consortium specific constructs and terminology.
320
Internet and web technologies and data-driven programming automated routine tasks and thereby made more time available for discourse. E.g., the availability of internet/web technologies and technical staff made posting 367 artifacts online feasible. Programming that generated data-driven websites reduced the time typically involved in making websites, also. The time involved in communicating commonplace information to students was reduced by pre-scripted communications that were generated automatically and delivered on a predetermined timing. The time needed for tracking and maximizing course enrollments was reduced by pre-programming registration reports that were online, updated every few minutes, and accessible ondemand. 3. A system for developing continuity was implied by evidence of reificative and participative memory. Artifacts appearing in the online archive (i.e., Sys Doc) and a generic knowledge bank (i.e., Online FAQ bank) were indicative of attempts to develop reificative memory. However, with the exception of FAQs, documentation was not accessible through categorical or key word searches.Commentaries from participants suggested participating personally or engaging with peers who operated at the core helped to build an understanding of how the consortium was intended to operate and increased their abilities to help students manage learning online.
321
Assertion Two and Supporting Rationale Evidence of orientation, reflection, and exploration implied the consortium facilities for imagination existed and were functioning. The rationale supporting this assertion was explained in the findings that collectively demonstrated: 1. The consortium operated in a complex environment that subjected its development to considering: (a) The extent upgrades would change member institutions; (b) the effect on members that competed regionally; (c) the widespread interest in maintaining a leading edge position in the state; and (d) the growing interest in moving the consortium to a more forward position in the national context. 2. Moving forward with an innovation or initiative proposed from a work group depended upon the idea aligning or at least not conflicting with the vision and mission set forth by presidents and the strategic academic and business plans determined by chief officers. 3. Providing models against which new ideas could be assessed were: (a) A representation of a student life cycle that implied the relationship intended between the student and the consortium membership; (b) a distance blueprint that designated responsibilities for meeting needs of two student types (i.e., online major; campus major taking online courses occasionally) to colleges or the support center; (c) Reports available from several authorities acknowledged nationally (i.e., Noel Levitz Priorities Survey of Online Learners, Sloan Pillars of Quality, North Central Higher Learning Commission, WCET) provided benchmarks related to the consortium key 322
indicators (i.e., access, satisfaction, learning, affordability, and provider participation). 4. Participants perceived that two drive-in meetings that were convened in the summer months helped participants who worked as chief academic officers and deans give focused attention to significant topics impacting the orientation of the consortium in the future year. 5. Participants felt empowered to initiate problem solving when students or practitioners were impeded by unintended consequences of the colleges working together and to devise solutions that did not exceed thresholds set by law, accreditation, or institutional policy. 6. Pilots informed by an intensive problem/resolution assessment were allowed. 7. The interest in exploring future trajectories and formally developing strategic plans seemed widespread, as did the confusion about the authorities and responsibilities for doing so. Assertion Three and Supporting Rationale Evidence of convergence, coordination, and jurisdiction implied that the consortium facilities for alignment existed and were functioning. The rationale for this assertion was explained by findings that collectively demonstrated: 1. Contributing to convergence were a common focus set by an explicit mission, a shared interest in student participation and success, five cornerstones that quantified provider/practitioner success, feedback from students and others, and firsthand participation in the consortium; detracting from convergences were inconsistent interests in reaching an extended marketplace and an 323
unclear vision for the future. While practitioners converged around their charge to implement the operational mission (i.e., to provide a satisfying, effective, and affordable college experience online) and around student recruitment, retention, and success issues as well as continuous improvement and innovation, their varied interests in reaching an extended marketplace and inconsistencies in the perceived vision and the strategic direction were distinctive. Practitioners were inspired by their shared interest in student success and subscribed to five cornerstones that were perceived as defining their collective success (i.e., access, learning effectiveness, student satisfaction, affordability, and faculty and staff satisfaction). They appeared to take action on the basis of feedback received from students, college administration and their college-appointed representatives to the consortium, in addition to their firsthand experiences. 2. The prevailing choreography suggested that some essentials were coordinated in theory but not implemented consistently, and others were open-ended enough that practitioners were not sure if a construct existed or if it was interpreted similarly across the region. a. A number of core processes and transactions affecting students were standardized (i.e., scheduling, registration, student communications on getting started) and a core set of duties were prescribed to the support center or campuses in the distance blueprint, but charges to groups were issued inconsistently and sometimes the standardized processed were overlooked or disregarded. While communications were 324
distributed in the course of everyday work, at meetings, and through artifacts posted on the web, participants were most attuned to the input received from the positions that connected the consortium and the colleges (i.e., presidents, chief academic officers, chief financial officers, dean/director and faculty and staff serving on the operations team, and course faculty). These positions were recipient of select discrete information that they could elect to convey to their respective college communities through venues, also of their choosing. b. While the process for addressing boundaries encompassed practices (i.e., meetings, review of as is, scenario development, negotiations, consensus), involved brokers who were charged with helping negotiators develop win-win solutions (i.e., consortium administrators) and negotiators that represented member colleges (i.e., collegedesignated officers), and the production of boundary objects (e.g., notes, processes, procedures, forms, content appearing at websites), individuals felt a need to protect the college interests even when doing so created a win-lose scenario that hampered member relations. c. Jurisdiction was heavily reliant on the content of inter-agency agreement that lacked specificity relative to an official commitment to a win-win philosophy, did speak to when and how and to whom in the state system office mediation or arbitration on that were not solvable by presidents should escalate, and did not describe the enforcement and distribution of authority in any detail. 325
Assertion Four and Supporting Rationale Principal strengths of the collaboration infrastructure seemed to reside in the incumbent engagement and imagination facilities. The rationale for this assertion was explained by findings that collectively demonstrated: 1. The principal strengths of the engagement facilities were grounded largely in factors that contributed to developing mutuality, although some notable strengths contributing to competence and continuity were identified also. a. Mutuality: A responsibility to participate was inherent in a membership. An inclusive approach afforded individuals opportunities to participate formally and informally in planning and providing the desired college experience online. A network of easily-accessed technologies supported planning and problem solving practices. Abundant formal and informal opportunities for remediating peripherality were available: E.g., Appointments to governing and operating groups; invitations to volunteer; basic information available on websites; formal presentations. b. Competence: Problems and problem solving were viewed positively, for the opportunities therein provided for improving the online student experience. c. Continuity: Participative memory contributed to continuity and was called upon in everyday practice more so than were notes or other forms of formal communication.
326
2. The principal strengths of the imagination facility resided in: (a) The extent to which centrally-coordinated groups put practitioners into contact with peers from other sites or colleges; (b) the freedoms granted to the operational work groups; and (c) the willingness of work groups to move forward with implementing pilots that involved untested ideas, which were neither endorsed or specifically disallowed in strategic or master plans. 3. The principal strength of the alignment facility resided in the commonly held preferences in communication technologies, features, and applications. a. Participants from the four colleges and the support center shared an appreciation for ten technology features (i.e., no same place requirement; not easy for sender to refuse or terminate; quick response; anytime messaging; ease of entering message; opportunity to speak the content; text content; audio and/or visual nature; proximity from voice; and ease for self to terminate). b. Similarities in the overall patterns regarding likes and dislikes of communicating through various technologies were evident, but were most widely shared for voicemail and email. For voicemail, patterns were similar across all agencies, all departments, and all job types, while for email patterns were similar across five agencies (i.e., all four colleges, support center), all departments, and all job types. For videoconferencing and phone conferencing, patterns were similar across most agencies (i.e., all four colleges, support center), all departments, and three job types (i.e., faculty, outreach/support staff, technical staff), while for ask a question, 327
patterns were similar across five agencies (all four colleges, support center), three departments (academics, marketing/service, technology), and all job types. For live chat, patterns were similar across five agencies (i.e., state, support center, two colleges – MSCTC, NCTC), two departments (academics, marketing/service), and two job types (i.e., faculty, support/outreach staff). For online meetings, patterns were similar for one agency (support center), all departments, and two job types (i.e., faculty, support /outreach staff, and technical staff.).Two older technologies (i.e., email, telephone) were preferred by most participants for most everyday exchanges. c. While none of the communication technologies were disliked and groups convened primarily using two technologies (teleconferencing, interactive television), when in-person or group exchanges were not feasible, individuals preferred two technologies that allowed them to interact from their offices or another wired location (i.e., email, telephone). Email and telephone were preferred over newer technologies by a majority for communicating about shared projects (five of seven agencies, all departments, those working all job types) and for swapping anecdotes (six of seven agencies, all departments, and those working in four of the five job types). When completing work that involved others from different locations, a first preference for email, then in-person, telephone, and group meetings prevailed in most areas (six of the seven agencies, all departments, and those working in four of the five job types. 328
4. Most participants preferred email for documentation and fact-finding, general communications and events planning, and relationship building with colleagues located elsewhere; however, email was not preferred for handling personal or personnel matters. a. Documentation sharing and fact-finding: Administration departments preferred in-person meetings for sharing paper documents and email for finding out about a specific topic. Academic and service/marketing departments and individuals working in support/outreach jobs preferred email for requesting specific information. b. General communications and event planning: For making general announcements, email was preferred by one college (NTC), marketing/service departments, and individuals working in support/outreach jobs. For organizing a social event, email was preferred by administration and marketing/service departments and individuals working in faculty and support-outreach jobs. For convincing a colleague to attend a conference, in-person was preferred by two colleges (MSCTC, NCTC), academic, marketing/service, and technology departments, and individuals working in support/outreach and technical jobs. c. Building relationships with colleagues: For keeping in touch, email was preferred by two colleges (ATC, NCTC), the support center, academic and marketing/service departments, and individuals working in faculty, dean/director, and support/outreach jobs. Email was preferred by the state office for discussing something relevant with others doing similar work 329
and for working with a group of colleagues from many locations. For exchanging opinions, email was preferred by the support center, administration and marketing/service departments, and for those working in support/outreach positions. d. Personal and personnel matters: For minor non-urgent matters, email was preferred by one college (MSCTC), academic, administration, and technical departments, and those working in faculty, dean/director, and technical jobs. For delivering confidential messages, in-person was preferred by one college (ATC). For communicating on personal matters, in-person was preferred by three colleges (MSCTC, NCTC, NTC), the support center, academic, administration, and marketing/service departments, and those working in faculty, dean/director, and support/outreach jobs. For resolving disagreements, in person was preferred by three colleges (MSCTC, NCTC, and NTC), the support center, academic and marketing/service departments, and individuals working in faculty, dean/director, and support/outreach jobs. 5. Co-located colleagues were consulted about consortium matters most frequently, and thereby administrators, staff and faculty participating in consortium groups played instrumental roles in the dissemination and interpretation of information pertaining to the consortium operation. In the course of everyday work, participants in support/outreach positions were inclined to interact with co-located colleagues, then with the consortium office staff, and lastly with colleagues from other sites or colleges. When swapping 330
work-related stories, participants from one agency (i.e., support center), one department (i.e., marketing/services), and those working in one job type (support/outreach) were inclined to interact with co-located colleagues, then with the consortium office staff, and lastly with colleagues from other sites or colleges. Assertion Five and Supporting Rationale While probable shortfalls in the collaboration infrastructure were traced to some specific features of the engagement and imagination facilities, the alignment facility appeared to be the most underdeveloped and controversial. The rationale for this assertion was explained by findings that collectively demonstrated: 1. Areas of opportunity for improving engagement related to addressing factors that detracted from developing mutuality, competence, and continuity: a. Noticeable detractions from mutuality included the following: (a) Infrequency of contact between remotely located colleagues; (b) underutilization of newer technologies; (c) not involving consultantevaluators and students in group work, and (c) lack of articulated ways to increase the exposure of those operating at the periphery to those operating at the core. b. Noticeable detractions from competence included the following: (a) Incomplete collection of artifacts; (b) two large but unlinked archives; and (c) a limited availability of tools suited to categorical and key word searches.
331
c. Noticeable detractions from continuity included the following: (a) Lack of an organized response for orienting newly appointed participants to the consortium and their added roles and responsibilities; and (b) lack of a conscious pursuit of benefits that might be gained from the paradigmatic trajectories of former employees. 2. Areas of opportunity for improving innovation related to addressing factors that detracted from understanding the intended orientation of the consortium, from providing opportunities for reflection, and from exploration. a. Noticeable detractions from orientation included the following: (a) Lack of a strategy for acknowledging and managing the competitive/collaborative relationship of members at all position levels (e.g., executive, manager, staff, faculty, and student). b. Noticeable detractions from reflection included the following: (a) Minimal amount of readily accessible benchmarking that assesses the consortium nationally, within consortia-based providers of online education, and with private-for-profit entities providing online education; and, (b) not involving student services dean/director and course faculty in retreats or drive-in meetings. c. Noticeable detractions from exploration included the following: (a) Unclear vision of the future; and, (b) lack of a strategic plan and a strategic planning process.
332
3. The alignment facility provided the greatest opportunity for improvement. a. Noticeable detractors to convergence included: (a) Interruptions rooted in differing opinions on whether the pursuit of an extended marketplace was appropriate; (b) a stalling out of activity tied to the lack of a clear cut system for resolving target market issues; (c) absence of a strategic plan and a strategic planning process that would inform learning how to work together and how to affect the disconnects between strategic and operational staff. b. Noticeable detractors to coordination included: (a) Underdeveloped jurisdiction; (b) a communication system that did not make clear the essential communication roles inherent in serving as a representative; (c) no apparent means for correcting departures from agreed upon approaches for strategic initiatives or everyday operations; and (d) preferences for and higher usage of older more familiar technologies implied that implied newer technologies were not leveraged fully. Question Three Result: Practitioner-Recommended Improvements The volume and richness of the suggestions implied participants were genuinely interested in the improvement process, took pride in actively contributing their ideas and expertise, and identified with the consortium and improvements made therein. Participants made specific suggestions pertaining to the three facilities (i.e., engagement, imagination, alignment) and directed the most suggestions toward engagement and alignment. Suggestions directed toward engagement focused on enhancements, while the suggestions directed toward alignment focused on establishing baseline fundamentals. 333
Assertion One and Supporting Rationale Recommended changes were related to mutuality, competence, and continuity, and thereby to engagement. The rationale for this assertion was explained by findings that collectively demonstrated: 1. The set of recommended changes affecting mutuality addressed the interactional network, inputs to joint tasks, and activities for remedying peripherality. a. Six suggestions related to the interactional network: (a) Development of practice standards pertaining to in-person meetings and drive-in events; (b) increasing the ease of navigating virtual spaces by creating a one-stop for employees and a single sign-on for the student portal; (c) increasing the ease of finding distance-related information by threading consortium information into the college websites; (d) development and formalization of communication guidelines that addressed how and when to use various technologies; (e) development of more efficient ways to electronically distribute news; and (f) orientations for first timers offered in advance of attending a meeting hosted via technology b. Two suggestions were related to joint tasks: (a) Strategies for keeping important things to do at the fore; and (b) improving the capacity of leadership to counsel practitioners on how the consortium benefits students and college and how it works in practice. c. Seven activities related to remedying peripherality: (a) Support center open houses for program and course faculty; (b) clarification of 334
membership responsibilities and the participation framework; (c) strategies for increasing interactivity between practitioners at different locations; (d) strategies for fostering a call and ask culture among staff; (e) installation of a new member application process; (f) strategies for acknowledging core participants; and (g) clarification on how peripheral participants may engage with core participants and the online support office. 2. The recommendations related to improving competence involved making specific changes to initiative taking and knowledgeability, accountability, and tools, also. a. Five recommendations related to the systems supporting the generation of know-how: (a) More role-specific training (i.e., new participant orientations, training for tenured members regarding how to unravel or deescalate troublesome dynamics, certifications for faculty teaching online, training on process and procedure changes, interviews with key contacts, college sponsored training on how the consortium works); (b) clarification on the college process for addressing distance-related concerns; (c) increased meeting frequency; (d) activities focused on formalizing processes and on remedying existing processes using feedback from students and others; and (e) focused efforts on improving member relations, business planning, human resources, system performance assessment, structuring (calendar), and the communication system.
335
b. Seven recommendations related to accountability: (a) Clarification of leadership and operational responsibilities; (b) broadening of the safety net created to prevent students from experiencing any unintended consequences from the partnership and/or pilots; (c) clarification of the benefits availed to members; (d) creating standards and a process for agreeing to disagree; (e) strategies for further developing a culture of helpfulness; (e) clarification of the consortium status; and (f) strategies for enhancing relation-building and the merging divergent perspectives grounded in politics, history, and innovation. c. Eight recommendations related to tools: (a) Preparation of the components needed for when/if the membership were expanded; (b) taking a longerrange more future-oriented view in planning; (c) increased opportunities for ongoing dialogs; (d) clarification of the criterion driving decisionmaking; (e) common calendar; (f) more user-friendly information for students and advisors; (g) common course numbering; and (h) strategies for streamlining the generation of instructional materials. 3. Suggestions pertaining to continuity addressed the development of reificative and participative memory making. a. Six recommendations related to reificative memory making: (a) Information on how the consortium works; (b) integration of consortium information at college websites; (c) repositories directed toward leaders and groups members; (d) clearinghouses on academics and student information; (e) documentation on specific topics (i.e., incumbent business 336
model; division of duties between state system initiative, consortium, colleges, support offices; roles of faculty, staff, administrators; consortium academic plan; revenue and expense sharing; values and desired outcomes; goals, benchmarks, and evidence; rules; decision making authorities; profile of the participating student body; student testimonials; support center usage statistics); (e) a repository of frequently asked questions; and (f) a system for communicating course equivalencies. b. Five recommendations related to participative memory making: (a) Mechanism to identify and connect core participants to peripheral participants, and vice versa; (b) audit to inform simplification of the system; (c) clarification of primary areas in which collaboration was expected; (d) development of scenario-based communication; and (e) conference presentations that involve administrators and practitioners from member colleges. Assertion Two and Supporting Rationale Recommended changes were related to orientation and reflection, and thereby to imagination. The rationale for this assertion was explained by findings that collectively demonstrated: 1. Pertaining to the imagination facility were recommendations that addressed orientation, reflection, and exploration. a. Seven suggestions related to orienting the consortium: (a) A depiction (i.e., diagram, working model, flowchart) of the consortium in relation to the state system, the state online initiative, and member colleges as 337
independent institutions; (b) promotion of the distance blueprint visual that is accompanied by a verbal report; (c) clarification on the roles of faculty and online advisors; (d) statement of the consortium purposes; (e) stories featuring employees describing their assimilation into the consortium; (f) purpose-oriented planning; and (g) clarification on the relationship between decision-making authority and member variables (i.e., size). b. Two suggestions related to reflection: (a) Explore other models (i.e., Arrowhead University Consortium in Minnesota); and (b) plan and offer a college distance summit, and then a consortium distance summit. c. Ten suggestions related to exploration: (a) Try more new things (i.e., market expansion initiative; serve as a test case for state system; accept new members; accept a lead role in innovation – pursue pilots, develop entirely new programs); (b) benchmark against similar and dissimilar organizations; (c) establish a think tank; (d) initiate scenario-based planning; (e) explore different academic models; (f) mentally implement pilots, then explore them in practice; (g) communicate plans that disburse information and collect input; (h) use project plans for guiding action and tracking accomplishments, challenge the current scope, and involve working through new prototypes.
338
Assertion Three and Supporting Rationale Recommended changes were related to convergence and coordination, and thereby to alignment. The rationale for this assertion was explained by findings that collectively demonstrated: 1. Pertaining to the improvement of the alignment facility were recommendations related to convergence, coordination, and jurisdiction. a. Six recommendations related to convergence and addressed strengthening the points connecting members: (a) Development of strategies to deescalate tension between members; (b) clarification of target markets; (c) vision that values service; (d) formalized strategy for integrating decisions into everyday practice; (e) formalized strategies for collaboratively responding to opportunities that would otherwise fuel competition; and, (f) corresponding strategic and master-level operational plans. 2. Twenty-three of the recommendations related to coordination: a. Twelve ideas pertained to standards and processes: (a) Develop a firm business framework that is inclusive of a business plan; (b) formalize training plan pertaining to every key role and responds to new and tenured practitioner-participants at all levels; (c) develop a feedback solicitation plan; (d) develop strategies to deal with attendee lack of preparedness for meetings; (e) clarify roles, responsibilities, and authorities vested in administrative positions involved in governing and operating the consortium; (f) foster a culture among frontline staff that encourages 339
experimentation with working differently, that expects one to seek out and use information, and that compels participation in local discussions about upcoming consortium decisions; (g) locate a help desk for distance students at campuses; (h) consider adding a business manager to the consortium office team; (i) formalize a strategy for addressing group process issues; (j) establish as process for making epic changes (i.e., finance, business matters); (k) develop and promote explicit statements on the consortium purpose; and (l) clarify the decision making process. b. Five ideas pertained to communication: (a) Clarify the communication system; (b) integrate strategies that generate direct contact between individuals located at different colleges; (c) employ just-in-time messaging system, templates, simply written content, personalized delivery, opt out option; (d) develop communication and freedom to act standards (i.e., college administrators communicate to college community, but staff may retrieve information from sources other than busy administrators); (e) develop strategies for emphasizing content that is germane to working together (i.e., benefits of working together, goals and key outcomes, updates on personnel, reports on student surveys and appeals). c. Six ideas pertained to boundary facilities: (a) Firm up boundaries related to governance (i.e., college and support center responsibilities, charges issued to standing and ad hoc groups, academic decision making); (b) address branding the consortium in the context of the college; (c) 340
encourage boundary brokers to regularly articulate outcomes and achievements to the consortium membership; (d) utilize student scenarios to compel change; (e) more explicitly associate data with mission, purpose, and member benefits; and (f) create simple ways to collect information (i.e., new program checklist). 3. Eight of the recommendations related to jurisdiction: a. Two suggestions addressed agreements: (a) Audit the alignment of college policies; and, (b) develop strategies and training on how to deal with complaints raised by peers. b. Six suggestions addressed resolutions: (a) Clarify the role of presidents relation to mediating resolutions; (b) continue monitoring and adjusting the business model; (c) determine when/if state offices should be invited into problem solving; (d) clarify operating principles; (e) clarify member responsibilities; and, (f) develop enforcement strategies (i.e., how to address a change of mind after a decision has been made; how to close gaps between what was intended and what was implemented; how members opt out; how members are removed). Question Four Results: Participation, Engagement and Reification Comments implied participation strengthened competence and commitment, motivated engagement, and increased reification. Assertion One and Supporting Rationale Participation provided experiences whereby participants came to understand what the consortium was and what being a member meant, fostered perceiving imperfection as 341
a catalyst for continuously improving the practice, developed an increased sense of ownership in the success of the consortium, encouraged a sense of belonging to the community, increased the tolerance for change, and provided a platform for discussing and resolving issues of professional or personal importance. The rationale for this assertion was explained by findings that collectively demonstrated: 1. Participation aided practitioners in creating meaning about the consortium context and lead them toward coming to understand that an experience rich with benefits was not necessarily trouble free. 2. With regard to the consortium practice, participation translated to an increased appreciation for working together to script and document processes, and encouraged adoption of a continuous improvement philosophy whereby imperfection was embraced for the improvement opportunities it offered. 3. Participation reinforced the value of involvement and increased ownership in the consortium successes and provided a forum for addressing how to manage the identities of the college as consortium member and the colleges as autonomous institutions. 4. Participation fostered the sense of community, encouraged thinking about the entirety of stakeholders to decisions rather than only those within physical proximity, and helped to ease participants into accepting that belonging to the consortium entailed changing – institutionally and personally. Assertion Two and Supporting Rationale Through participation, practitioners were engaged in shaping activities directed more toward fostering continuity, mutuality, and competence, and away from the raw 342
experimentation that had defined the consortium in its start-up period. The rationale for this assertion was explained by findings that collectively demonstrated: 1. Participation contributed to developing a sense of continuity through a shared an appreciation for: (a) Communication that lead to being in the know; (b) opportunities for conversations with others who were not otherwise easily accessible; and (c) the complexities involved in communicating effectively about the consortium activities in which one was involved. 2. While views on meeting frequencies and focuses seemed divergent, there appeared to be agreement on the notion that participating in meetings generally lead to increasingly valuing meetings as opportunities whereby mutuality could be developed. 3. While the need for taking risks and making and learning from mistakes was acknowledged as necessary for beginning the operation, there was some expectation that the time was right for focusing on institutionalizing the system among a widening group of practitioners. Assertion Three and Supporting Rationale Participation contributed to the appreciation for reification and acknowledgement of its effect on the order of operations. The rationale for this assertion was explained by findings that collectively demonstrated: 1. Participation translated into increasingly valuing easily accessible codified information. 2. Well-organized repositories of information informed participation, and vice versa.
343
3. Participation increased the appreciation for retrieval mechanism that alleviated participants of mundane organizational tasks. Question Five Results: Effects of Implementing the Recommendations The "Network Center", a prototype of an online communication hub was reviewed positively and appeared to meet the foundational expectations of practitionerparticipants; however, as its features did not alleviate fully the existing concerns related to the overarching collaboration infrastructure (i.e., engagement, orientation and jurisdiction facilities) the "Network Center" should not be envisioned as a single solution to alleviating the challenges identified in the incumbent infrastructure. Assertion One and Supporting Rationale Identified as the strengths of the prototype were its informational value, its information management capacity, its utility as a virtual one-stop, and the potential benefit to the development of collegiality, capacity to support ongoing dialogs, effect on developing continuity outside the core group of participants, and the anticipated decreases in the time needed for communication and document management. The rationale for this assertion was explained by findings that collectively demonstrated: 1. Participants forecasted the benefits of implementing the prototype to include: (a) Improved connectivity and collegiality; (b) inherent opportunity for more interactive dialog between practitioners at different sites; (c) effect of more well organized information on consistency; and, (d) decreased time invested into communication and document management.
344
2. With regard to the nature of creating a viable virtual place, the one-stop utility of the ease of accessing and navigating the prototype was acknowledged widely, and requests were put forward for the inclusion of more multi-media. 3. The inclusion of representations and artifacts within the prototype streamlined document management, and afforded more informed participation and made more time available for conversing and completing group work. 4. While participants perceived the prototype did not address fully the concerns identified in the incumbent facilities (i.e., engagement, imagination or jurisdiction), neither did they envision the model detracted from resolving the challenges through other means. Assertion Two and Supporting Rationale Identified as the drawbacks of the prototype were its probable limited effect on social networking, the limited inclusion of multi-media, the potential impact on the established patterns of interactivity (e.g., in-person meeting schedule), the time needed for users to engage with new tool and for coordinators to upkeep the content, and need for developing new conventions, standards, and training. The rationale for this assertion was explained by findings that collectively demonstrated: 1. With regard to community building, the informational value of the prototype was acknowledged widely, but a social networking value was not. 2. The net effect of introducing the online center into the established practice raised some concerns: (a) Impact on in-person meetings; (b) impact on user and coordinator time; (c) usability; (d) impact to the incumbent communication flow; and (e) need for new communication standards and training. 345
Question Six Result: Effects of Future Involvement in Deployment and Usage As judged by practitioner-participants from groups governing and operating the consortium, what effects would their involvement in deploying and using the improved collaboration infrastructure have upon further developing shared practice? Statements implied that participants envisioned their participation in the study had immediate and future value. Assertion One and Supporting Rationale There was a sense that personally participating in the consortium development activities had contributed positively to the consortium, the member colleges, peripheral participants and other more removed practitioners, and the individual participant. 1. Participant involvement in the prototyping process created some relief about the feasibility of engaging colleagues at other sites in qualifying and solving shared problems. 2. The possibility of moving forward with assessing more closely and implementing the changes suggested by participants was met with enthusiasm, as was the opportunity for implementing the "Member Network Center" represented in the prototype. 3. Only a few participants overtly stated their interest in incorporating the findings of the study directly into the work of the consortium. Question Seven Result: Patterns and Hypotheses From the patterns in the data, four probably hypothesis for future investigation were identified. Assertion One 346
A virtual team and a community of practice may coexist. Assertion Two Relationships nurtured in the informal context of a virtual community of practice contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of decisions made by formally convened virtual teams. Assertion Three When presented with a probable valued outcome, ongoing opportunities to interact, the time needed to develop shared experiences, and individuals willing to act as brokers, practitioners will eventually develop a collaborative model that is customized to their circumstances. Assertion Four The vitality and sustainability of a consortium are influenced by its capacity to recalibrate the balance of organizational formality and fluidity. Conclusions In summary, collectively results emphasized that practitioner-participants from groups governing and operating the consortium perceived their meaningful involvement in assessing and planning improvements to the existing consortium collaboration infrastructure had improved and would continue to improve the capability of their groups to create and continuously improve shared practice. Practitioners seemed to assume their collective effective participation in group work enhanced the overall capability of the consortium and aided in securing their and its future. Results aligned Distance Minnesota with organizational structures described in the educational and business genre of the literature, and differentiated the incumbent 347
model of the consortium from an institutionalized and highly formalized cooperative business (ICA 2005; NCBA, n.d.). The incumbent model seemed to align well with three organizational forms: (a) Organizations that were described in literature as “nontraditional, “different”, “electronic”, “online” and “virtual” (Bates, 2000; Carchidi & Peterson, 2000; Eckel et al., 2003; Epper & Garn, 2003; Hanna, 2003; Katz et al., 2002; Oblinger et al., 2001; Twigg, 2003); (b) virtual teams and virtual communities of practice (Hildreth et al., 1998, 2000; Kimble et al., 1998a, 1998b; Kimble et al., 2000; Kimble & Selby, 2000; Lessor & Storck, 2001; Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003; Strock & Hill, 2000; Wenger, 2000, 2003; Wenger & Snyder, 2000; Wenger et al., 2002); and, (c) two American educational consortia (Fulmer, 2002; Johnson, 2005b). Results also provided evidence that the organizational constructs indicative of a co-existing virtual team and a virtual community of practice, which were formerly documented in business settings, also existed in education. Results on the assessment of the consortium collaboration infrastructure suggested the components of an organizational learning architecture that were described in Wenger (2003) existed in the consortium. Results also offered insights for making future comparisons with strategies that Saint-Onge and Wallace (2003) recommended for leveraging community-based learning for strategic advantage. Results also provided a framework for exploring the art and science of cultivating communities of practice and exploiting the value chain of a knowledge-based business that Wenger et al. (2002) described. Results contributed to the information on emergence patterns of virtual teams and communities of practice, and provided insights for comparisons with the concerns and problems commonly experienced by virtual teams existing in socially and technologically 348
networked businesses. Results also implied that the incumbent infrastructure of the consortium fostered collaboration through formality and informality, and that technology and harder more codified knowledge and people, relationships, and a softer, more social, and less well articulated knowledge were addressed by the structures, and were aligned with communities described by Hildreth (2004).The suggestions generated from practitioners acknowledged the “work of belonging” that was discussed in Wenger (2003). The theme of the suggestions made and the tenor expressed in their mention were aligned with the works of Kimble et al. (1998a, 1998b) and Kimble (2000), which suggested that virtual organizations typically experienced two types of barriers (i.e., technological, non-technological). The tendency for non-technological features to draw the most attention aligned with the works of Kimble et al. (1998a, 1998b) and Kimble (2000), also. The results aligned with the literature in other ways, too. The results contributed to positions taken in two studies of inter-institutional consortia: (a) Johnson’s (2005a) position that general acknowledgment of “compelling” domain-related conditions reinforced the value a consortium and extended the community’s tolerance for working hard and practicing patience; and, (b) Fulmer’s (2002) position that a consortium needs a mission that compliments the institutional missions of members. The positive relationship perceived to exist between participating and the appreciation for participation, engagement, and reification were similar in nature to the attributes of social learning that was described by Wenger (2003). The anticipated positive effects emerging from deploying and operating with an improved collaboration infrastructure based on practitioner input is consistent with the rationale explaining why businesses would 349
encourage communities of practice to develop and why individuals would engage with peers in continuous system improvement – strategic advantage (Saint-Onge & Wallace, 2003). Recommendations Application to the Educational Practice While crafting an online inter-institutional consortium is admittedly an exercise in experimentation, the findings from this study of the collaboration infrastructure of the online inter-institutional consortium demystify at least somewhat “what it takes to cultivate communities in the interorganizational context” and thus may serve as a loosely constructed list of considerations for consortium leadership. The account of the research process provides specific insight on how to involve practitioners in making assessments and how to translate their input into practical wisdom. Serving as the practical wisdom of practitioners experiencing working in the context of an online inter-institutional consortium, the findings imply attention paid to both the formalized virtual team and the informal communities of practice is advisable, as is understanding that the operational success of both are in some way intertwined. Additionally findings highlight the developmental nature of collaboration and provide insight on tailoring structures to encourage engagement, imagination, and alignment so that over the course of time the benefits of doing so may be reaped as collaboration. The reported results were applicable to the practitioners participating in the study; however, an interest in future research that would compare the results from core practitioners with those operating on the periphery of the consortium community or within similarly styled or differentiated consortia was piqued. As the study involved a 350
purposive sample that represented practitioners who were members of the groups governing and operating the consortium, it would seem reasonable to expect other consortium practitioners and individuals from the member colleges who did not actively participate in the consortium to be less oriented toward an overarching community of practice. Conversely, the possibility that the concerns, concepts, and strategies for similarly styled organizations were applicable to the online inter-institutional consortium and vice versa was raised. But in either case, only with more research could a determination be made about the appropriateness of the possible applications. While the results of the study pertain only to the Distance Minnesota consortium, the report contains information that others may find is useful in assessing their own settings and probable improvements. As example, though the suggestions pertain directly to the consortium participants, others might use them as a sort of checklist for discussion purposes even though determining the universality of the suggestions would require more research and a more detailed look at how the nature of the improvements may relate to community variables (i.e., maturity, size, tenure of participants). Further, although the assessment of involvement on participation, engagement, and reification pertained directly to participants, the possibility of seeing similar trends in other practitioners in the consortium and in similar organizations exists. Similarly, while the review process may help others plan reviews occurring within their organizations, the comments provided pertained specifically to the prototype under review and to the participants involved. Application to the Continuing Development of Distance Minnesota To the leadership of Distance Minnesota the findings are of particular value. The findings demonstrate that the tribulations entailed in learning how to work together have 351
resulted in developing both a virtual team and a virtual community of practice, which are largely focused on meeting student needs and are united in a desire to press forward and further refine the practice. To that end, using the findings on the strengths and shortfalls of the incumbent collaboration infrastructure provides a well-informed starting point for: (a) Strengthening the working relations between members and among participants, and (b) further investigating the design and implementation of the Network Center, which will not only pay homage to the work underway but will ease the complexities of learning how to work together in a complex and ever-changing environment. Additionally, as Distance Minnesota consortium appears to be aligned with both a virtual team and a virtual community of practice, leaders and practitioners alike should apply the research on virtual teams and virtual communities of practice to the development of the organization with confidence. Recommendations for Future Research As the study serves as one inquiry into improving collaboration within an online inter-institutional consortium, more research in the same area is sorely needed. To know more about the effects of formality and fluidity on consortia durability would be helpful also. Additionally, inquiries into the coexistence of and relationship between virtual teams and communities of practice in educational settings are recommended, as is investigating the role of leadership in fostering administratively-oriented communities of practice. Implications Learning to work in new, but real and meaningful way offers the promise of more capable practitioners, a more capable profession, a better educated graduate, and a 352
citizenry more inclined toward peacefulness. In combination with studies completed previously, this study offers a stepping stone from which we can move forward into the unknown with well-founded confidence.
353
REFERENCES Abdullah, M., Benest, I., Evans, A, & Kimble, C. (2002). Knowledge modelling techniques for developing knowledge management systems. In Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Knowledge Management, Dublin, Ireland, September 2002, 15-25. Retrieved January 2003 from http://www.chriskimble.com/Publications/Documents/Abdullah_2002.pdf. Abecker, A., Bernardi, A., Hinkelmann, K., Kuhn, O. & Sintek, M. (1998). Towards a technology for organisational memories. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 13(3), 30-34. Argyris, C. (1991, May-June). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review. Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman. Asynchronous Learning Network/Sloan-C (n.d.). Website accessed June 2006 from www.aln.org. Bahrami, H. (1996). The emerging flexible organisation, perspectives from Silicon Valley. The California Management Review, 34(4), 33-52. Barton, L. (2005). Rethinking governance in inter-institutional cooperation arrangements in higher education. College Quarterly, 8(1), Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology. Retrieved June 2006 from www.senecac.on.ca/quarterly/2005-vol08num01-winter/barton.html. Bates, T. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for colleges and university leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Baus, F. & Ramsbottom, C. (1999, Summer). Starting and sustaining a consortium. Best Practices in Higher Education Consortia: How Institutions Can Work Together. New Directions for Higher Education, 27(2), 3-18. 354
Black, S. (2003). Can academic partnerships in technical communication work? In Lessons from Minnesota. 30th Annual Meeting of the Council for Programs in the Scientific and Technical Communications, October 2-4, 2003, Potsdam, NY. Retrieved June 2006 from www.english.vt.edu/~dubinsky/CPTSC_03/ abstracts_03_a-f_1.htm. Benson-Armer, R. & Hsieh, T. (1997). Teamwork across time and space. McKinsey Quarterly, 4, 19-27. Berger, P. (2000). Multiple realities and the making of worlds. In S. Gotz & G. Torner. Research in Mathematical Beliefs. Proceedings of the MAVI-9 European Workshop, Vienna Austria, June 1-5, 2000, Duisburg University, pp. 7-12. Retrieved May 2003 from http://www.prof-dr-berger.de/pap/worlds.pdf. Bernstein, R. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism: science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Beyer, H. & Holtzblatt, K. (1997). Contextual design: A customer-centered approach to systems design. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Boersma, J. & Stegwee, R. (1996). Exploring the issues. In Proceedings of the Information Technology Management in Europe Track of the Information Resources Management Association International Conference. Retrieved April 2005 from www.ub.rug.nl/eldoc/som/96A09/96a09.pdf. Borg, M., Gall, J. & Gall, W. (1996). Educational research (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. Brennan, S. & Clark, H. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. Resnick, J. Levine & Teasley, (Eds.), Socially shared cognition (127-149). Washington, DC: American Psychology Association. Buckingham Shum, S. (1998). Negotiating the construction of organisational memories. In U. Borghoff and R. Pareschi (Eds.). Information technology for knowledge management, 55-78, Berlin, Germany: Springer. (First published as: Negotiating the construction and reconstruction of organisational memories. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 3 (8), 1997, 899-928. Retrieved January 2003 from http://d3e.open.ac.uk/general/negotiating-org-mem/negotiating-org-mem-01.html. Carchidi, D. & Peterson, M. (2000). Emerging organizational structures. Planning for Higher Education, 28, 1-15.
355
Carr, W. & Kemmis, C. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research. London: Falmer Press. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Malden. Chesbrough, H. & Teece, D. (1996, January-February). Organising for innovation: When is virtual virtuous? Harvard Business Review, 65-73. Coghlan, D. & Brannick, T. (2005). Doing research in your own organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Conkar, T. & Kimble, C. (1997). CLIMATE - Developing a framework for the requirements analysis of virtual environments. (Technical Report No. YCS 291). United Kingdom, University of York: Department of Computer Science. Retrieved January 2003 from http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~kimble/research/ EthiComp98.pdf. Conklin, J. (1996). Capturing organisational memory. In R. Barcker (Ed.), Groupware and computer-supported cooperative work (561-565). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufman. Cooper C. & S. Jackson (Eds.), Creating tomorrow’s organizations, New York: Wiley. Cross, K. (1976). Accent on learning: Improving instruction and reshaping curriculum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Crowl, T. (1996). Fundamentals of educational research (2nd ed.). Chicago: Brown and Benchmark. Curtis, B., Hefley, W., & Miller, S. (1995). People capability maturity model, Version 1, (Technical Report CMU/SEI-95-MM-002 DTIC Number ADA 300-822). September 1995, Pittsburgh, PA: Software Engineering Institute. Davenport, T. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. de Hoog, R., Benus, B. Vogler, M. & Metselaar, C. (1996). The commonKADS organization model: Content, usage, and computer support. Expert System with Application, 11(1), 29-40. Deaux, K. & Wrightman, L. (1988). Social psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. 356
Dick, B. (May 1993). A beginner's guide to action research. The University of Queensland, AU: Department of Psychology. Retrieved October 2001 from http://ousd.k12.ca.us/netday/links/Action_Research/begin_guide_action_research. Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper Business. Duguid, P. & Seeley Brown, J. (1996, July-August). Universities in the digital age. Change,11-19. Duin, A., Baer, L. & Starke-Meyerring, D. (2001). Partnering in the Learning Marketspace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dzbor, M, Paralic, J., & Paralic, M. (2000). Knowledge management in a distributed organization (Technical Report KMI-TR-94). United Kingdom, Open University, Knowledge Media Institute. Eaton, J. (2001). Academic and political challenges for higher education accreditation. CHEA Monograph Series 2001, 1. Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Retrieved June 2006 from http://chea.org/pdf/mono_1_dist_learning_2001.pdf. Eckel, P., Affolter-Caine, B., & Green, M. (2003). New times, new strategies: Curricular joint ventures. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Elliot, J. (1991). Action research for educational change. Buckingham: Open University Press. Emery, F (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems: A conceptual framework and action research program. Presented at The 1981 Conference of Organizational Design and Performance, Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved August 2008 from http://grouper.ecn.purdue.edu/papers/ public/evolution_of_socio_technical_ systems.pdf. Entwistle, N. & Ramsden, R. (1983). Understanding student learning. London: Croom Helm. Epper, R. & Garn, M. (2003). The virtual university in America: Lessons from research and experience. Educause Center for Applied Research, 2004(2). Retrieved June 2006 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERB0402.pdf. Fairbairn, M. (2003). Three strategic concepts for the guidance of co-operatives: Linkage, transparency, and cognition. Centre for the Study of Co-operatives, University of Saskatchewan. 357
Fleck, J. & Tierney, M. (1991). The management of expertise: Knowledge, power and the economics of expert labour, (PICT Working Paper No. 29), United Kingdom, Edinburgh. Fernback, J. (1997). The individuals within the collective: Virtual ideology and the realization of collected principles. In S. Jones (Ed.), Virtual culture (36-54). London: Sage. Foote, N. & Manville, B. (1996, July). Harvest your workers’ knowledge, Datamation. Fulmer, S. (2002). The development of a higher education consortium: A case study of the Southwest Virginia Education Center. Unpublished dissertation, East Tennessee State University. Retrieved June 2006 from http://etd-submit.etsu.edu/ etd/theses/available/etd-0405102-170351/unrestricted/fulmerS042202.pdf. Gao, F. Li, F. & Nakamori, Y. (2002). Systems thinking on knowledge management and its management: Systems methodology for knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1), 7-17. Garoyan, L. & Mohn, P. (1976). The board of directors of cooperatives. University of California at Davis. Goldstein D. (1993). Computer-based data and organizational learning: The importance of managers’ stories. Journal of Organizational Computing, 3(4), 417-442. Grimshaw, D., Mott, P. & Roberts, S. (1997). The role of context in decision making: Some implications for database design. European Journal of Information Systems, 5(4), 113-122. Habermas, J. (1968). Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie. Frankfurt, Germany. In H. Moser (1999). Baker, M. (translator). Thick description and abduction: Paradigm change in social research. Praxisforschung. Retrieved August 2004 from www.schulnetz.ch/unterrichten/fachbereiche/medienseminar/paradigms.htm. Hanna, D. (2003). Organizational models in higher education, past and future. In M. Moore & W. Anderson (eds), Handbook of Distance Education (67-78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Harasim, l, (1987). Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in computer-mediated graduate courses. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16(2), 117-135.
358
Hendriks, P. & Virens, D. (1999). Knowledge-based systems and knowledge management: Friends or foes? Information & Management, 35, 113-125. Herr, K. & Anderson, G. (2005). The action research dissertation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative inquiry: Research into the human condition. London: Sage. Herriot, P., Hirsch, W & Reilly, P. (1998), Trust and transition: Managing today’s employment relationship. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons. Higher Learning Commission. (2006). 2016: Ready or not? Retrieved June 2006 from http://www.ncahlc.org/annualmeeting/downloads/06GPDescr.pdf. Hildreth, P. (2000). ‘Going the Extra Half-Mile’ – International Communities of Practice and the Role of Shared Artefacts. Unpublished dissertation, University of York. Retrieved September 2005 from http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/ftpdir/reports/YCST2001-05.pdf. Hildreth, P. & Kimble, C. (2002). The duality of knowledge. Information Research, 8(1), paper no. 142. Retrieved February 2004 from http://InformationR.net/ir/81/paper142.html. Hildreth, P., Kimble, C. & Wright, P. (1998, March). Computer mediated communications and international communities of practice. In Proceedings of Ethicomp ’98 (275-286), Eramus University, The Netherlands. Retrieved January 2003 from http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~kimble/research/EthiComp98.pdf Hildreth, P., Kimble, C. & Wright, P. (2000a). Communities of practice: Going virtual. In Knowledge Management and Business Model Innovation (220-234). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Retrieved January 2003 from http://uk.arxiv.org/ftp /cs/papers/0101/0101012.pdf and http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/mis/ docs/ kmbmichapter.pdf. Hildreth, P., Kimble, C., & Wright, P. (2000b). Communities of practice in the distributed international environment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 27-37. Retrieved January 2003 from http://uk.arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/ 0101/0101012.pdf. Hiltz, S. (1986). The virtual classroom: Using computer-mediated communication for university teaching. Journal of Communication, 36(2), 95-104. 359
Hiltz, S. & Turoff, M. (1978). The networked nation. (1st Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Holter, I. & Schwartz - Barcott, D. (1993). Action research: What is it? How has it been used and how can it be used in nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 128, 298304. Igbaria, M. & Tan, M. (1997). The virtual workplace. Virginia: Idea Group. Instructional Technology Council. (2006). E-learning 2006 held February 11-14 in Savannah, GA. Retrieved June 2006 from http://www.itcnetwork.org/ elearning2006.htm. iSeek Solutions and the Minnesota Learning Innovations Council. (2006). 2006 Minnesota e-Learning Summit, May 18-19, 2006, Augsburg College, Minneapolis, MN. Retrieved June 2006 from http://www.mngts.org/elearning06. International Cooperative Alliance/ICA. (2005). ICA website. Accessed October 2005 from www.coop.org/index.html. International Cooperative Alliance/ICA. (2007). ICA rules ,policies, procedures and standing orders. Retrieved August 2007 from http://www.ica.coop/ica/2007-icarules.pdf. Ives, B. & Jarvenpaa, S. (1992). Global information technology. Some lessons from practice. International Information Systems, 1(3), 1-15. Jarvenpaa, S. & Liedner, D. (1998). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 36(2). Retrieved January 2002 from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue4/jarvenpaa.html. Johnson, A. (2005a). A short guide to action research. Boston: Pearson Education. Johnson, K. (2005b). Inter-institutional collaboration: A case study of the factors contributing to the viability of the Iowa Community College Online Consortium. Dissertation, University of Northern Iowa. (UMI No. AAT 3195938). Retrieved June 2006 from http://wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/fullcit/3195938. Kaniclides, A. & Kimble, C. (1995, February). A framework for the development and use of executive information systems. In Proceedings of GRONICS (47-62), Groningen, The Netherlands, T. Lourens (Ed.). 360
Karimi J. & Konsynski, B. (1991). Globalization and management strategies. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(4), 7-26. Katz, R., Ferrara, E. & Napier, I. (2002). Partnerships in distributed education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Kemmis, S. & McTaggert, R. (Eds.) (1988). The action research planner. Melbourne, Australia: Deakin University. Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating change in higher education in the 21st century. Washington DC: George Washington University. ERIC Digest, ED457763. Retrieved June 2005 from http://www.ericdigests.org/20022/21st.htm. Kilpatrick, J. (2003). Lean principles. Utah Manufacturing Extension Partnership. Retrieved June 2006 from http://www.mep.org/textfiles/Lean Principles.pdf. Kimble, C., Grimshaw, D., & Hildreth, P. (1998a, April). The role of contextual clues in the creation of information overload: matching technology with organsational needs. In Proceedings of the 3rd UKAIS Conference (405-412). Lincoln University, McGraw Hill. Kimble, C., Grimshaw, D., & Hildreth, P. (1998b). The roles of contextual cues in the creation of information overload. In D. Avison & D. Edgar-Neville (Eds.), Matching Technology with Organisational Needs, Proceedings of the 3rd UKAIS Conference (405-412). Reading, MA: McGraw Hill. Kimble, C., Li, F, & Barlow, A. (2000). Effective virtual teams through communities of practice. Strathclyde Business School. Research paper no. 2000/9. Retrieved January 2002 from http://www.mansci.strath.ac.uk/papers.html. Kimble, C. & McLoughlin, K. (1995). Computer-based information systems and managers’ work. New Technology, Work and Employment 10(1), 56-67. Kimble, C. & Selby, W. (2000, April). An interdisciplinary study of information systems: Christopher Alexanser and IS failure. In Proceedings of the 5th UKAIS Conference (256-265). University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, McGraw Hill. Kinchloe, J. (1991). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. London: Falmer.
361
Knoll, K. & Jarvenpaa, S. (1997). Working together in global virtual teams. In M. Igbaria & M. Tan (Eds.), The virtual workplace, Virginia: Idea Group. Kogut, B. & Zander, V. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397. Kock, T. (2005). Using action research to study e-collaboration. Texas A&M International University. Retrieved July 2006 from http://cits.tamiu.edu/kock/ pubs/journals/2005JournalIJeC3/Kock2005_IJeCv1n4_AREcollab.pdf Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning. Chicago: Follet. Lauer, R. (1973). Perspectives on social change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lesser, E. & Storck, J. (2001). Communities of practice and organizational performance. IBM Systems Journal, 40(4), 831-841. http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/ sj/404/lesser.html. Lewin K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. In Selected Papers on Group Dynamics. G. Lewin. (Ed.). (1948). New York: Harper & Row. Li, F. & Gillespie, A. (1994). Team telework: An emergent form of work organisation. In R. Baskerville et al., Tranforming organisations with information technology, Amsterdam: North Holland. Liao M., Hinkelmann, K., Abecker, A., & Sintek, M. (1999). A competence knowledge base system for the organizational memory. In F. Puppe (Ed.), XPS-99: Knowledge bases systems – Survey and future direction, 5th Biannual German Conference on Knowledge Based Systems, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligience 1570, Wrzburg: Springer Verlag. Lindstaedt S. (1996). Towards organizational learning; Growing group memories in the workplace. In M. Tauber M. (Ed), In Proceedings from CHI 96 Conference Companion (53-54). Vancouver, Canada. Lipnack, J. & Stamps, J. (1997). Virtual teams: Reaching across space, time and organisations with technology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
362
Loucopoulos, P. & Kavakli, V. (1999). Enterprise knowledge management and conceptual modeling. Lectures Notes in Computer Science, 1565, 123-143. Luft, J. (1969). Of human interaction. Palo Alto, CA: National Press, 177. In J. Luft. (1970). (2nd Ed.) Group processes; An introduction to group dynamics. Palo Alto, CA: National Press Books. Macintosh, A., Filby, I. & Tate, A. (1998). Knowledge asset road maps. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Practical Aspects of Knowledge Management (PAKM 98), Basel, Switzerland. Retrieved January 2003 from http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/~oplan/documents/1998/98-pakm98-roadmaps.pdf. Manheim, M. (1992, January). Global information technology. International Information Systems, 38-63. Masters, J. (2000). The history of action research. In I. Hughes (Ed.). Action research electronic reader. The University of Sydney. Retrieved November 2004 from http://www.behs.cchs.usyd.edu.au/arow/Reader/rmasters.htm. Mayo, E. (n.d.). In Elton Mayo. Organisations and consultancy @ one pine. Retrieved October 2001 http://www.onepine.info/pmayo.htm. McCutcheon, G. & Jurg, B. (1990). Alternative perspectives on action research. Theory into Practice, 24(3). McKernan, J. (1991). Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. London: Kogan Page. Michellone, G. & Zollo, G. (2000). Competencies management in knowledge-based firms. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, 1(1), 20-41. Minnesota Online. (2005). Accessed July 2006 from www.minnesotaonline.org. Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Board of Trustees. (2006). Accessed July 2006 from http://www.mnscu.edu/board/index.html. Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Office of the Chancellor. (2006). Accessed July 2006 from http://www.chancellor.mnscu.edu/chancellor. Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Campus Service Units. (2006). Accessed July 2006 from http://www.chancellor.mnscu.edu/divisionsites.html. 363
Moreno, J. & Fox, J. (1987). The essential Moreno: Writings on psychodrama, group method and spontaneity. New York: Springer. Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morgan, G. (1989). Creative organization theory Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Moore, M. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Boston: Wadsworth. Moran, L. & Myringer, B. (1999). Professional reflective practice and lifelong learning, In H. Keith (ed), Higher education through open and distance learning (57-61). London: Routledge. Moser, H. (1975). Aktionforschung in die qualititative sozialforschung. In Baker, M. (translator). An introduction to praxis research. Praxisforschung. Retrieved August 2004 from http://www.schulnetz.ch/unterrichten/fachbereiche/ medienseminar/introduc.htm. Na Ubon, A & Kimble, C. (2002, March). Knowledge management in online distance education. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference Networked Learning 2002 (465-473). University of Sheffield, UK. National Cooperative Business Association/NCBA. (1990). How to organize a cooperative. National Cooperative Business Association/NCBA. (n.d.). NCBA website. Accessed September 2005 from www.ncba.coop. Nave, D. (2002). How to compare Six Sigma, Lean and the Theory of Constraints: A framework for choosing what’s best for your organization. American Society for Quality (ASQ). Retrieved June 2006 from http://www.asq.org/pub/ qualityprogress/past/0302/qp0302nave.pdf. Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York: Oxford University Press. Norris, D., Mason, J., Robson, R., Lefrere, P. & Collier, G. (2003). A revolution in knowledge sharing. EDUCAUSE Review, 38(5), 14-26. Retrieved June 2006 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0350.pdf.
364
Oblinger, D., Barone, C. & Hawkins, B. (2001). Distributed education and its challenges: An overview. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Offerman, M. (1985). Factors leading to the termination of three consortia of higher education institutions: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois. Oravec, J. (2003). Some influence of on-line distance learning on US higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 27(1). Retrieved June 2006 from http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/media/8gmkwluqvrka0xwvuxv2/contributi ons/2/4/x/g/24xge78f3m6wtpn9.pdf. Orr J. (1990). Sharing knowledge celebrating identity: War stories and community memory in a service culture. In D. Middleton & D. Edwards (Eds.), Collective remembering: Memory in society. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. Orr, J. (1997). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. New York: Cornell University Press. Owen, H. (1987). Spirit, transformation, and development in organizations. Potomac, MD: Abbott. Retrieved August 2006 from www.openspaceworld.com/ Spirit.pdf. Owen, H. (1991). Riding the tiger: Doing business in a transforming world. Potomac, MD: Abbott. Retrieved August 2006 from www.openspaceworld.com/ tiger.pdf. Owen, H. (Ed.). (1995). Tales from open space. Potomac, MD: Abbott. Retrieved August 2006 from: http://www.openspaceworld.com/Tales.pdf. Owens, R. (1991). Organizational behavior in education. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall. Pan Canadian Advisory Committee for Online Learning. (2001). The e-learning revolution. Ottawa: Information Distribution Centre, Communications Branch, Industry Canada. Retrieved January 2003 from http://www.schoolnet.ca/ mlg/sites/acol/ccael. Parker-Follett, M. (n.d.). Excerpts from papers presented to the London School of Economics in 1933. Mary Parker-Follett in Organisations and consultancy @ one pine. Retrieved November 2004 http://www.onepine.info/pfollett.htm. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 365
Paulson, M. (2002). Online education systems in Scandinavian and Australian universities. The International Review in Open and Distance Learning, 3(2). Retrieved June 2006 from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/ viewArticle/104/183. Peters, O. (1969, May). New perspectives in correspondence study in Europe. In ICCE Proceedings (94-105), 8th conference of the International Council on Correspondence Education, Paris. Polanyi, M. (1996). The tacit dimension. (1st Ed.). New York: Doubleday. Prusak, L. (1997). Knowledge in organisations. Oxford, England: ButterworthHeinemann. Rainie, L, Fox, S. Horrigan, J., Fallows, D., Lenhart, A., Madden, M., Cornfield, M., & Carter-Sykes, S. (2005). Internet: The mainstreaming of online life. PEW American Life Project. Retrieved October 2005 from http://www.pewinternet.org/ pdfs/Internet_Status_2005.pdf. Roberts (n.d.). A social science dictionary. Middlesex University, UK. Accessed August 2004 from http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/sshglo.htm. Rogers, C.R. & Freiberg, H.J. (1994). Freedom to learn (3rd Ed). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan Roschelle, J. (1996). Designing for cognitive communication: Epistemic fidelity or mediating collaborative inquiry. In D. Day & D. Kovacs (Eds.), Computers, communication, and mental models, Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis. Rother, M. (2002). What are we learning to see since we started to see? Cambrige, MA: Lean Enterprise Institute. Accessed July 2006 from http://www.lean.org/ Library/What_Are_We_Learning_Since_We_Started_Learning_to_See.pdf. Rummler, G. & Brache, A. (1995). Improving performance: How to manage the white spaces in the organization chart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sachs, P. (1995). Transforming work: Collaboration learning and design. Communications of the ACM, 38(9), 36-44. Sagor, R. (2005). The Action research guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
366
Saint-Onge, H. & Wallace, D. (2003). Leveraging communities of practice for strategic advantage. New York: Butterworth Heinemann. Sandusky, R. (1997). Infrastructure management as co-operative work: Implications for systems design. In S. Hayne & W. Prinz, (Eds.), In Proceedings of the International ACM SIGGroup Conference on Supporting Group Work (91-100). Saavedra, E. (1994). Teacher transformation: Creating texts and contexts in study groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. Saavedra, E. (1996). Teaching study groups: Contexts for transformative learning and action. Theory in Practice, 35(4), 271-277. Schmuck, R. (2006). Practical action research for change (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Schön, D. (1973). Beyond the stable state. Hamondsworth, Country: Penquin. Schreiber, G., Crubezy, M, & Musen, M. (1999). A case study using Protégé 2000 as a tool for CommonKADS methodology. Boston, MA: MIT Press. Seeley Brown, J. & Duguid, P. (1991). Organisational learning and communities of practice. Organisation Science, 2(1), 40-57. Seeley Brown, J. & Duiguid, P. (1996). Organizing knowledge. California Management Review, 40(3), 90-111. Seeley Brown, J. & Solomon Grey, E. (1995). The people are the company. Fast Company. Retrieved September 2003 from http://www.fastcompany.com/ online01/people.html. Serdiukov, P. (2001). Models of distance higher education: Fully automated or partially human? Educational Technology Review. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Retrieved June 2006 from http://www.aace.org/ newdl/index.cfm/files/paper_10269.pdf?fuseaction=Reader.DownloadFullText& paper_id=10269. Snyder, W. & Wenger, E. (2004). Our World as a Learning System: A Communities-ofPractice Approach. In M. Conner & J. Clawson (eds), 2004, Create a learning culture: Strategy, practice, and technology, Cambridge University Press. Retrieved June 2006 from http://generativedialogue.org/documents/ SnyderOurWorld.pdf. 367
South Florida Center for Educational Leaders/SFCEL. (2001). SFCEL website. Florida Atlantic University: School of Education. Boca Raton, FL. Retrieved November 2004 from http://www.coe.fau.edu/sfcel/default.htm. State of Minnesota: Minnesota. (2004). State Colleges and Universities Inter-Agency Agreement for Regional Distance Consortium - June 25, 2004. Retrieved August 2007 from http://distance.minnesota.edu/system_doc/index.php?cat_ id=8§ion_id=71. Stewart, T. (1996, August). The invisible key to success. Fortune. Stringer, E. (2004). Action research in education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Strock, J. & Hill, P. (2000). Knowledge diffusion through ‘strategic communities’. Sloan Management Review, 41(2), 63-74. Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarborough, H., & Hislop, D. (1999). Knowledge management and innovation; networks and networking. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(4), 262-275. The Communities of Practice Consortium. (2000). Leaders Forum. (n.d.). Retrieved March 2004 from www.leadersforum.com/member/wenger/tsld007.htm. Thorndike, E. (1913). Educational psychology: The psychology of learning. New York: Teachers College Press. Townsend, A., De Marie, A., & Hendickson, A. (1998). Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. Academic of Management Executive 12(3), 17-29. Twigg, C. (2003, September-October). Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning. Educause Review, 28-38. Retrieved June 2006 from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0352.pdf. Twigg, C. & Oblinger, D. (1996). The virtual university: A report from a joint Educom/IBM roundtable. Educom 1997 Interuniversity Communications Council, Inc. and IBM Corporation 1997. Retrieved June 2006 from www.educause.edu/ ir/library/html/nli0003.html. Twitchell, J. (2004). Higher education, inc. Wilson Quarterly, 28(3), 46-59.
368
U.S. Department of Education/USDOE. (2000). The power of the Internet for learning: Moving from promise to practice (Web-Based Commission). Washington, DC: Education Publications Center. Retrieved September 2005 from www.ed.gov/ offices/AC/WBEC/FinalReport/Preface.pdf. U.S. Department of Education/USDOE. (2003). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2000-2001. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved September 2005 from http://nces.ed.gov/ pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003017. Van den Branden, J. (2001). Scenarios for PhD courses in a European network environment as supported by EuroPACE. In J. Stephenson (Ed.), Teaching and learning online, London: Kogan Page. Vasconcelos, J., Gouveia, F., Kimble, C. (2002). An organisational memory information system using ontologies. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of the Associacao Portuguesa de Sistemas de Informacao, University of Coimbra, Portugal, November 2002. Vasoncelos, J., Kimble, C., Gouveia, F., & Kudenko, D. (2001). Reasoning in corporate memory systems: A case study of group competencies. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Symposium on the Management of Industrial and Corporate Knowledge, Universite de Technologie de Compiegne, France, October 2001. Vicari, S., von Krogh, G., Roos, J., Mahnke, V. (1996). Knowledge creation through cooperative experimentation. In G. von Krogh and J. Roos (Eds.), Managing knowledge. perspectives on cooperation and competition (184-202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Vollebregt, A. Teije, A. van Harmelen, F. Lei, J & Mosseveld, M. (1999). A study of PROforma, development methodology for clinical procedures. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 17(1), 195-221. Von Krough, G, Ichijo, K. & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation. New York: Oxford University Press. WCET division of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. (2006). Blazing the e-learning trail…forging new ways to learn, November 1-4, 2006, Portland, OR. Retrieved June 2006 from http://conference.wcet.info/2006. Weinberger, D. (2002). Small Pieces Loosely Joined: A Unified Theory of the Web. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. Retrieved June 2006 from www.smallpieces.com. 369
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice: Responding to the knowledge challenge. The Communities of Practice Consortium. Retrieved February 2004 from http://leadersforum.com/member/wenger/tsld001.htm. Wenger, E. (2003). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity (9th Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). A Guide to Managing Knowledge: Cultivating Communities of Practice. Boston: Harvard Business School. Wenger, E. & Snyder, W. (2000, January-February). Communities of practice: The organisational frontier. Harvard Business Review.139-145. Werry, C. (2002). The work of education in the age of e-college. San Diego State University. San Diego, CA. Retrieved June 2006 from www-rohan.sdsu.edu/ ~digger/596/werry.pdf. Williams, T. (1994). Information technology and self managing work groups. Behaviour and Information Technology, 13(4), 268-276. Wigg, K. (1997). Knowledge management: Where did it come from and where will it go? Expert System with Application, 13(1), 1-14. Wood, D. & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139-162. In K. Johnson, 2005b, Interinstitutional collaboration: A case study of the factors contributing to the viability of the Iowa Community College Online Consortium. Dissertation, University of Northern Iowa. (UMI No. AAT 3195938). Retrieved June 2006 from wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/fullcit/3195938. Zuber-Skerrit, O. (1992). Action research in higher education: Examples & reflections. London: Kogan Page. Zuber-Skerrit, O. (1995). Models for action research. In S. Pinchen & R. Passfield. (Eds.) Moving on: Creative applications of action learning and action research (3-29). Queensland, Australia: Action Research, Action Learning and Process Management.
370
APPENDIX A. DISTANCE MINNESOTA ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNANCE
Fig. A.1. Distance Minnesota organizational structure. Recreated from Distance Minnesota (n.d.). May 2006 I-1. Overview of Online Consortium. Slide 6 of 9. Retrieved July 2006 from http://distance.minnesota.edu/system_doc/files/i-1_overview_of_ online_consortium_may_5_2006_meeting.pdf.
371
Fig. A.2. Continuous quality improvement framework for Distance Minnesota. Recreated from System Map. (n.d.). Distance Minnesota System Documentation. Retrieved July 2006 from www.distance.minnesota.edu/system_doc.
372
Fig. A.3. Distance Minnesota governance system. Recreated from Distance Minnesota (n.d.). May 2006 I-1. Overview of Online Consortium. Slide 5 of 9. Retrieved July 2006 from http://distance.minnesota.edu/system_doc/files/i-1_overview_of_online_consortium _may_5_2006_meeting.pdf.
373
Table A.1 Distance Blueprint
(table continues)
(Table A.1 continues on next page) 374
Table A.1 (continuation)
(End of table) Recreated from Distance Minnesota (n.d.). Distance Education Blueprint. Retrieved July 2006 from http://www.distance.minnesota.edu/about/system/blueprint.pdf.
375
APPENDIX B. LEADING VIRTUAL TEAMS Background: The literature agrees about the need to prepare personnel for the process of initiating and integrating virtual teams or virtual communities of practice in the workplace. Kimble et al. (2000) suggests that preparing workers and managers for what is coming is the best way to build in success. With proper preparations trust, personal satisfaction, and performance will be improved. Based on the typical experience described by Kimble et al. (2000), the following key concepts are proposed for inclusion in training, when implementing work, and when in conversation. Table B.1. Key Considerations Key concept
Advisements
Addressing concerns about the role and scope of virtual teams
Create a dialog on what is typical and what results full engagement and continuous participation will bring about Clarify that onsite and virtual teams will coexist Indicate how the social conventions and governance involved in onsite and virtual teams are similar but different Keep unions well-informed and involved as is appropriate State and share intended scopes, purposes, and fit between both types of teams Stress the concept of continuous shaping Position managers to serve as an on-demand point of clarification on social conventions and governance Identify and communicate any changes to the controls and supervision authorities existing onsite; if none, then emphasize no change
Fostering personal responsibility, professional growth, and organizational benefits
Encourage patience with the process Expect concerns, especially at the beginning and from those who are the most invested and well-established in the current onsite Promote the benefits of full engagement has professional benefits (e.g., new skills; diversification; opportunity to learn/demonstrate virtual competence) Explain and promote the concept of generative social practice (See Wenger, 2003) Clarify freedoms/limitations for information sharing about work in progress or sharing personal expertise with virtual and onsite teams Provide training on technologies for all involved Sponsor kick-off events and other introductory activities Encourage staff at all levels to use their network to hook up with someone who holds a like position and is experienced in virtual teams Model preparation and problem solving approaches at the management level (Table B.1. continues on next page)
376
(Continuation of Table B.1) Preparing for Participation in virtual teams
Legitimize personal time and effort invested in virtual teams (e.g., it counts toward fulfilling work obligations) Articulate the value received from virtual participation Explain membership is employees with similarities and differences (e.g., from this and other locations, from this and other companies, from this and other time zones, cultures, etc.) Clarify union involvement in virtual teams and with regard to their output Articulate the “common ground” (Brennan & Clark, 1991) Articulate/emphasize the role of trust Identify the protections/controls available to members Indicate the concerns of virtual team members that are far-removed will be equally as important as those of the onsite staff Create linkages for workers in virtual teams to share work in progress with virtual and onsite teams Include occasional face-to-face events
Handling other issues and concerns
Allocate the time necessary to participate in virtual teams Choose technologies that will best support the group processes Explain monitoring of return on investment (End of Table B.1.)
References Brennan, S. & Clark, H. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. Resnick, J. Levine & Teasley, (Eds.), Socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kimble, C., Li, F, & Barlow, A. (2000). Effective virtual teams through communities of practice. Strathclyde Business School. Research paper no. 2000/9. Retrieved January 2002 from http://www.mansci.strath.ac.uk/papers.html. Wenger, E. (2003). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. (9th Ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
377
APPENDIX C. DEVELOPING VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE Background: The ideas are intended to be pragmatic and applicable to developing international virtual communities of practice that are composed of multiple levels of groups. Ideas are generated from a study by a virtual community of practice network that involves a virtual international team (IITMan) with virtual national teams that are colocated (UKIT, USIT), individuals (JIT), and teams and colleagues that are onsite but not directly involved (Hildreth et al., 2000a, 2000b; Hildreth & Kimble 2000). This research sought to identify conditions contributing to communities of practice that were first identified by Lave and Wenger (1991) operating effectively in a virtual context. More specific information on the research leading to these ideas is available in Hildreth & Kimble (2002), Hildreth et al. (2000a, 2000b). Ideas for Developing Virtual Communities of Practice in Settings that Incorporate Virtual and Co-Located Groups and Individuals at an International, Regional, and Local Levels 1.
Do not rely solely on virtual contact; incorporate some in-person contact, especially at initiation and periodically at strategically timed dates thereafter but at least every 6 months.
2.
Draw on a portfolio of media options (i.e., voice, video, and data); do not presume higher end media is more beneficial but rather select what will most effectively support the group purpose, goals, and immediate tasks.
3.
Redefine documentation as “artifacts” (e.g., project plans, processes, procedures, tools); while meeting notes are documentation, they will not serve as artifacts.
4.
Use the process of creating shared documentation to engage individuals in making personal contributions to the knowledge production process.
5.
Use the process of creating shared documentation to stimulate ad hoc discussions, to bring about collaboration, to create opportunities to tap personal expertise, and to create boundaries that transcend time and distance.
6.
During and immediately following each documentation process, set mini deadlines that ensure development timelines will be met.
7.
Engage members in composition processes. Recognize that personal expertise encompasses contributing specific content but also ideas on how to frame the specific content.
8.
Likewise, use and encourage members to use the shared documentation to increase knowledge retention and knowledge transfer to and from the main virtual team/community (IITMan), within affiliates subgroups (e.g., UKIT, USIT, and JIT), 378
and from affiliate subgroups to others in the immediate environment (e.g., co-workers not involved in virtual or affiliate team/s). 9.
Position the shared documentation (artifacts) in high profile and easily accessed locations to reinforce participation, and group and personal identity, a sense of accomplishment, and a symbol that members have a reason to keep communicating and interacting in the future.
10. Use the artifacts as a platform around which the virtual team can congregate in the
future; set review and update timelines to reinforce the long-term nature of the relationships with the entire virtual team, its affiliate teams, and others who are colocated but not involved. 11. Begin the redevelopment involved in continuous improvement efforts by using the
preexisting works to build confidence, trust, and identity References Hildreth, P. & Kimble, C. (2002). The duality of knowledge. Information Research, 8(1), paper no. 142. Retrieved February 2004 from http://InformationR.net/ir/81/paper142.html. Hildreth, P., Kimble, C. & Wright, P. (2000a). Communities of practice: Going virtual. In Knowledge management and business model innovation, Hershey, PA: Idea Group, 220234. Retrieved January 2003 from http://uk.arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/ 0101/0101012.pdf and http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/mis/docs/kmbmichapter.pdf. Hildreth, P., Kimble, C., & Wright, P. (2000b). Communities of practice in the distributed international environment. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 27-37. Retrieved January 2003 from http://uk.arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0101/0101012.pdf. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
379
