Estimating Costs and Allocating Resources

This week in my Walden University Project Management (EDU-6145-1) class, I am required to look for sites that offer help with estimating costs, effort, and activity durations associated with instructional design projects. A plethora of information exists to explain the various methods of estimation for projects in general, but I did not find many sites that offer free estimation tools in the form of online apps or downloadable software. Some went as far as to offer free Microsoft Excel spreadsheet templates and explanations about how to construct your own estimation tools. Here is one example: http://konigi.com/tools/schedule-and-cost-summary-calculator. In the past, I have most often created my own estimation tools in spreadsheets since they are specifically designed for performing calculations. This makes the job of calculating cost, effort, and durations simple. It is a matter of looking up a formula in help or online and then copying and modifying it to fit your needs.

The first site I stumbled across that looked interesting was one that offered assistance in understanding the various kinds of estimates from a software development perspective. The site is located at http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/jun07/temnenco/index.html. It is not written in relation to instructional design; however, it applies to instructional design in that software project management and ISD are similar work processes. The site explained past and present estimation models and has good and simple graphics to help visualize the processes. It lists some of the available estimation tools in Table 1. At the end is a list of articles outlining best practices and sources for more information. In this article, I especially like how it illustrates the top down and bottom up estimation models as is explained in our course text (Portny, 2008).

One size fits all rules of thumb in estimating instructional design projects are not practical (Greer, 2009). The second useful site I found presents reasonable estimate times for how long it takes to develop one hour of training. The site is located at http://www.astd.org/Publications/Newsletters/Learning-Circuits/Learning-Circuits-Archives/2009/08/Time-to-Develop-One-Hour-of-Training. It might be surprising to you that according it should take about 43 hours to develop one hour of stand-up classroom instruction according to the survey taken in 2009. This is probably still very accurate since the process of instructional design has not changed much in the past five years. If you do find this number surprising, you probably have not ever developed a course that is built on adequate analysis, sound instructional objectives, learning theory, and also required media, lesson plans, and other supporting materials that go along with it. If you are surprised, I am guessing that you probably have developed PowerPoints which some people call the curriculum. Now that I have your attention, explore the site above and see why it takes so much time to develop good instructional products, and note that the site does not include the time it takes for formative and summative evaluations which are typically required of any instructional design project. These need to be added to the time given in the chart.

References

Greer, M. (2009). Michael Greer’s PM Resources. Retrieved from http://michaelgreer.biz/?p=279

Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Communicating Effectively

This week in my EDUC-6145-1 Project Management class at Walden University, I was asked to view a multimedia program called “The Art of Effective Communication (Laureate, n.d.).” In this program, I viewed a project manager named Jane communicating with someone named Mark about a deadline. The message was presented in three modalities: email, voicemail, and face to face. I am asked to interpret the message as it was delivered in each modality and point out if anything changed in interpretation from one point to the next. I am also asked to share what it implies about communicating effectively to members of a project team and what I learned that will help me communicate more effectively.

Jane is asking Mark to send an ETA on the missing report. She explains that she will miss her deadline if he does not send the report soon. She starts off with “I know you have been busy in that all day meeting.” She then asks him to let her know when he can send the report over, or if he can send the needed data in a separate email. All three modalities contain exactly the same message, but the three modalities convey different communication tones.

I perceived the email as a passive “please help me” tone, i.e. the project manager pleading for them to send the product; however, there is really no way to interpret the sender’s tone in this email. How it is perceived may depend entirely upon the receiver’s mental state and mood when it is received. It doesn’t adequately show the urgency that should be conveyed. However, email is a good follow-up tool or a way to send information when you want to track a conversation, but it does not properly convey tone and body language. On the other hand, the voicemail does convey the proper tone minus body language. Her tone is still “please help me”, but it comes across as sincere and clearly sends the urgency message. However, I think that a voicemail is simply too easy for the receiver to delete and forget. In contrast to email and voicemail, the face to face message comes across as directive and urgent. Jane's body language is clear—I need this now. There can be no question whether or not Mark received the message. However, I recommend that Jane follow up the face to face meeting with an email so that the conversation is documented and Mark has a reminder of it (Portny et al., 2008).

It is amazing how the same message seems so different in the three modalities even though it is exactly the same words. This shows that the way you send the message is important. Some people only communicate in email. Although, email provides a good way of tracking the conversation, there is a possibility that the urgency of the message will not be conveyed. In a phone call, even though the tone is evident, it is too easy for the receiver to dismiss and forget the message leaving the sender wondering if it was received. However, the face to face communication was straightforward, sent the proper urgency through tone and body language, and allowed the receiver to ask questions.

What I learned from this analysis is that it is important to choose the modality that fits the situation. Neither email, voicemail, nor face to face is a one fits all solution to effective communication. If it is urgent, face to face is sometimes the best way to communicate and then follow up that with either a phone call if the demand is not met. If it is simply information, email is appropriate. However, if it needs a direct response that is not time sensitive, then email or voicemail is appropriate. I personally would follow any one of the three up with one of the other modalities depending upon the urgency and importance of the message (Portny et al., 2008).

References

Laureate Education (Producer). (n.d.). The Art of Effective Communication [Multimedia file]. Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu

Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Learning from a Project “Post-mortem”

About four years ago, I was involved in a project to create curriculum for the Navy. We were asked to design and develop four very specific combat skills courses. Curriculum existed; however, it was not up to Navy standards. Our statement of work was to develop them to full NAVEDTRA 130B standards, ready for input into the Navy’s Authoring Instructional Materials system. The East and West coast training entities that had requested the curriculum development project had never operated on the same curriculum. We were the first to develop courses that would tie them together on the same training schedule and enforce the same curriculum standards.

Prior to project start, I was asked to estimate the development time. I initially set it at 14 months for the four courses which were over 320 hours of training combined. My estimate was based on a complete work breakdown structure and a Gantt chart that described how the project team would make it happen within the allotted time (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, & Cramer, 2008). Due to the need to maintain business with the Navy, the company immediately cut the time to 12-months thinking that the Navy would balk at the extended development time and money. After working with our business partner and prime-contractor, the time was further cut to 9-months. I had initially asked for six instructional designers and one lead instructional designer. I was given four instructional designers and one lead instructional designer for the 14-month period. I had also requested a graphics designer, but that was cut altogether. 

I reset the project schedule to match the 9-month delivery; however, we struggled constantly throughout to stay on track. There were constant shifts in client demand which resulted in scope creep (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, & Cramer, 2008). There were many delays in product approval along the way which set us even farther behind in moving on to the next phase. Eventually, we had to hire two more instructional designers as consultants just to get back on track. In the end, we delivered the course at between 12 and 14 months with the two additional instructional designers working full time. Throughout the course development process we involved all stakeholders keeping them informed of scheduling issues and progress (Portny, Mantel, Meredith, Shafer, Sutton, & Cramer, 2008). However, the project was finally completed at risk to the company, i.e. very little if any profit was obtained from it because we won the contract at a low price of 9-months but ended up taking 14-months. 

Looking back on the project, what happened was that the company chose the idea of wanting a good client relationship over the expert advice of their instructional design team lead. Business development managers decided that they knew what was best and overrode my estimate of 14-months. The project ended up costing the company their reputation and their money. According to Allen and Hardin (2008), "the manner in which the scope, schedule, costs, and human resources of a project are presented to the organization's management impact and often determine an ISD project's success (p. 73)." I think if I had been given the chance to present my plan to the business development managers versus simply “sending” it forward, I might have been able to persuade them differently. There was no champion to explain why it takes 14-months to develop four courses totaling over 320 hours of training. The project was a success in that quality curriculum was delivered, and we did receive positive feedback from the Navy curriculum manager. However, the 9-month delivery timeline was busted, and because of that, we didn’t receive good reviews from the commanding officer. Consequently, the company was not invited back to develop curriculum the next time.

References

Allen, S., & Hardin, P. C. (2008). Developing instructional technology products using effective project management practices. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19(2), 72–97.

Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

New Journey

I am starting a new journey in my Walden University Instructional Design and Technology Master's degree. For the next eight-weeks, I will be exploring instructional design project management. This course has direct application to my current job, and I am looking forward to the challenge.