OERu/2011.11 OERu Proposal for action for overall project plan

Proposal from Dunedin Group 3 for the overall project management.

Aims of the activity (longer term)

 * Clarify and develop levels of participation for founder members allowing us to meet deadlines and have appropriate inputs. 
 * Offering a proof-of-concept prototype (small number of courses) that will enable students to get credit before the end of 2012. This will involve scholarships for pilot students.
 * Assessment of learning outcomes and the development of a formal review process.

1.2 Objectives of the activity (short term)

 * Get the context and input evaluation started to design the prototype
 * Develop a system to keep the project moving in a steady timeframe: Prospectus – with critical part – the WBS – featuring Responsibility / Accountability / Consult / Inform (RACI) – clarify who is what. (Example attached) 
 * Align project planning with documents to funding proposals - present our documentation to a funder – one possible - February 9th 2012 deadline for NextGen funding + shoot to Hewlett etc.
 * Engage quality review standard bodies – input evaluation needed. Get an organization in early to review the project – perhaps a small steering group needed: EFQUEL, or Ulf Ehlers – director of OPAL. A system-wide review – over-arching quality framework

Narrative description of what you will do
''Work on Project documentation that clarifies deliverables, ownership and deadlines; clarify point people at each founder member. Package these materials to present to a foundation or some possible funder. Develop a prototype to be in market for fall/autumn 2012, full launch fall / autumn 2013. Clarify all roles – on the project team (multi-national) and at each institution – suggestion = three people on the steering committee with a named liaison person at each institution – all docs to WIKI (transparent). ''

What inputs are required?

 * Identification of point person at each institution – formal list (institution – steering committee? Liaison/representative) 
 * Timelines / launch date – in market date
 * Review of Project Planning documentation
 * List of courses for pilot

Decision proposal(s) for OERTen partners for this activity including who and when.

 * Commit to Timeline / launch date & in market date
 * Identify liaison representatives etc. – our ability to contact them.
 * Agree to present to specific foundations (on this afternoon’s agenda)

Underlying Principles
We endorse the principle of institutional autonomy and context specific applications – within the guidelines of open governance and open management


 * The models have to be scalable.
 * The student experience has to be learner centered.
 * Total learning system must be considered.
 * Push towards an outcome based model.
 * Accountability for active engagement

Other issues

 * Critical questions around what defines a course – are the materials stand alone or can you only access / study the materials as part of the (college-specific) course.
 * We must develop this to speak to Social Justice yet be sustainable – Affordable access to education
 * We had discussion around - context-specific applications – identifying particular areas of study – could be a language focus or other (Narend) – allows institutional autonomy.
 * Review all materials that are there already – Saylor etc. – don’t reinvent the wheel.

Threats

 * Over-elaboration in the planning stageLack of consensus over project goals etc. – could lead to amorphous “product” – people have to engage and refine as we go (documentation on WIKI) – perhaps we need a charter.