Abridged eMM Evaluation

For this post I am looking at two eMM processes. The areas that they are based within are Development and Support. I am using the eMM 2.3 Core Assessment Workbook. This is not presented in the same manner as the eMM practices used in last week's analysis. It sorts the practices backwards into the dimensions of  optimisation, management, definition, planning and delivery. This confused me to start with when I began to analyse the relative strengths of the process capability dimensions.
The organisation that I have selected to consider for this task is a tertiary institution in the South Island of New Zealand. The programme being informally evaluated is representative of an undergraduate programme of study. The institution has a blended approach to teaching.

Process D7: e-learning resources are designed and managed to maximise reuse.
This is a significant process for the organisation, as it has only been developing such resources for around 3 years and establishing a base benchmark now will allow development to be monitored over the next stages of resource creation and reuse.
Overall, the institution is extremely variable on this with responses ranging from fully adequate through to not adequate. After comparison, it seems to be stronger in the Delivery area, with Planning second. Though intentions are good, more robust formal monitoring and documented policy is absent. Most of the documentary evidence for this particular process was not available to the public. In this process I also found one example where the practice in the institution has gone backwards.(incentives provided to teaching staff who create resuable e-learning resources).

Process S2: Students have access to a range of library resources and services when engaging in e-learning.
Coming from a library background, I regard the practices in this area as extremely significant when supporting the operational management of e-learning delivery. These areas are a more mature part of the organisation, but even so, there is scope for improvement. Definition was the area of most weakness followed by Optimisation.
One issue I have is around the assumption that the benchmark as established is actually best practice. In the past 6 years, I believe that practice has moved on, and the assumption that is made that a library will sit separately from the learning and teaching support aspects of the institution it supports is no longer fully valid. Some of these benchmarks also seem designed for very large libraries. Also, the assumption that best practice is to assign a designated library staff member whose contact information is made available is not, in my opinion, the fairest and most consistent approach to take for students. The institution evaluated here provides other means of contact that ensure students get an apt and timely response from the most appropriate staff.

Materials used to define the characteristic practices:

• the website of both the institution and its library,

• the website of the students' association

• the course outlines and graduate profiles from the programme,

• internally available material related to a recently developed project around digital objects.

Overall, I think the major point that this exercise makes clear is that mentioned in our course material: "The key point to note is that more e-mature organisations have evolved ecologies that ease the use and adoption of digital technologies. " (Davis, N. and Mackintosh, W., 2013,s.8). This organisation is not yet e-mature, though there are clear signs that it is proceeding in that direction based on the two processes selected for this exercise. The model permits a clearer vision on the areas where easing that use and adoption could be better achieved.

This assessment was conducted as a personal learning exercise to gain understanding of the eMM and my assessments were for the most part restricted to publically available information and limited to the two e-learning processes described.

Images:
The two images reproduced here are from the Openclipart  website. Images from this site are able to be freely reused.

References:
Davis, N. and Mackintosh, W. (2013). Section eight: The organisation. [Available from University of Canterbury Learn EDEM 630 web site].

Marshall, S.  (2007). eMM-Core self-assessment workbook. [draft report]. Retrieved from: http://www.utdc.vuw.ac.nz/research/emm/documents/versiontwothree/20070620eMMCoreWorkbook.pdf