ID Org Structure

3
Mong K. Sai Course Number: Assignment #1 July 11, 2001 Samosa Inc. has been a leader in the electronics industry over the past 25 years. As advancements in technology and the need for an educated workforce increases, greater flexibility in training options will be required to move into the 21 st century. This memo outlines three organizational struct ures to consider in moving toward providing online learning solutions in the workplace. Organizational Structure Options I. Outsource the Work Online learning is a field that has its own issues and dilemmas to grapple with. One option to consider is outsourcing the design, development and deployment of online learning solutions to expert vendors or consultants. According to Lent (1990), this option has several benefits: buy only the skills and services required, pay for quality and creativity and hire resources that can be efficient and focus on the task at hand. All key elements such as instructional design, measurement, multimedia production and development would be outsourced to an outside resource, relying on the vendor resource to  provide expertise and guidance on what instructional design process to use. A point person deemed the Project Manager who resides with the existing Training group, would manage the internal communications and vendor relations to complete an initiative. This is the simplest and quickest method to launch an online initiative, without extensive monetary commitments to additional headcount or infrastructure requirements. II. Functional Structure, Decentralized Within each line of business, a Training group exists to supports the development for online learning solutions for that division. These individuals could be the same individuals that design for traditional face-to face learning experiences or could be new hires. They would be responsible for all tasks including needs assessment, setting the instructional design strategy, development, creati ng a measurement plan and collaborating across the organization as needed to complete initiatives (i.e., working with subject matter experts, and partnering with the creative and the technology group). Individuals in this group would need to be generalists, understanding in-depth the specifics needs of the line of business. This group would report directly into the each  business head. This approach allows for custom online solutions that are specific to each line of businesses' needs. III. Matrix Structure, Centralized Lent quotes Kerzner as saying “ The matrix organizationa l form is an attempt to combine the advantages of the pure functional structure and the product organizational structur e.” (1990, p.131) Using Tony Bates' Aspects of Quality in Technology-based Education (2000) with some modificatio n, a matrix organization at Samosa would encompass 4 groups under an Online Learning Departmen t whose focus is on: Content and Project Management  —Responsibl e for content development/writing as well as all project management-related tasks such as preparing project plans and budgets, assigning tasks, managing work against deadlines and communicating progress to all team members.

Transcript of ID Org Structure

8/6/2019 ID Org Structure

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/id-org-structure 1/3

Mong K. Sai

Course Number:

Assignment #1

July 11, 2001

Samosa Inc. has been a leader in the electronics industry over the past 25 years. As

advancements in technology and the need for an educated workforce increases, greater flexibilityin training options will be required to move into the 21st century. This memo outlines three

organizational structures to consider in moving toward providing online learning solutions in the

workplace.

Organizational Structure Options

I. Outsource the Work 

Online learning is a field that has its own issues and dilemmas to grapple with. One option to

consider is outsourcing the design, development and deployment of online learning solutions to

expert vendors or consultants. According to Lent (1990), this option has several benefits: buy

only the skills and services required, pay for quality and creativity and hire resources that can be

efficient and focus on the task at hand.

All key elements such as instructional design, measurement, multimedia production and

development would be outsourced to an outside resource, relying on the vendor resource to

 provide expertise and guidance on what instructional design process to use. A point person

deemed the Project Manager who resides with the existing Training group, would manage the

internal communications and vendor relations to complete an initiative.

This is the simplest and quickest method to launch an online initiative, without extensive

monetary commitments to additional headcount or infrastructure requirements.

II. Functional Structure, Decentralized

Within each line of business, a Training group exists to supports the development for online

learning solutions for that division. These individuals could be the same individuals that designfor traditional face-to face learning experiences or could be new hires. They would be

responsible for all tasks including needs assessment, setting the instructional design strategy,

development, creating a measurement plan and collaborating across the organization as needed to

complete initiatives (i.e., working with subject matter experts, and partnering with the creative

and the technology group). Individuals in this group would need to be generalists, understandingin-depth the specifics needs of the line of business. This group would report directly into the each

 business head.

This approach allows for custom online solutions that are specific to each line of businesses'

needs.

III. Matrix Structure, Centralized

Lent quotes Kerzner as saying “ The matrix organizational form is an attempt to combine the

advantages of the pure functional structure and the product organizational structure.” (1990, p.131)

Using Tony Bates' Aspects of Quality in Technology-based Education (2000) with some

modification, a matrix organization at Samosa would encompass 4 groups under an Online

Learning Department whose focus is on:

Content and Project Management  —Responsible for content development/writing as well

as all project management-related tasks such as preparing project plans and budgets, assigning

tasks, managing work against deadlines and communicating progress to all team members.

8/6/2019 ID Org Structure

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/id-org-structure 2/3

Media Production —Responsible for creating any graphics and flash animations needed

for course development. A further cost-benefit analysis should be done to assess

feasibility and benefits of developing in-house capabilities in audio and video

 production.

 Instructional Design —Sets the standards pertaining to all course design anddevelopment elements including clear and desirable learning objectives, how materials

should be organized and chunked, what forms of interactivity should be designed intolearning, what media elements are required to teach toward the stated learning

objectives and how to measure that learning objectives are being met.

 Delivery and Student Support  —Implements the online learning solution. They identify

facilitators to deliver synchronous sessions, giving learners opportunities to ask 

questions and receive feedback in an open forum. In addition, support services such as

technical help desks and coaches to support content-related questions that come up

during learning are offered.

For an online learning project, there would be at least one individual from each of these group

assigned at the onset, responsible for bringing their related expertise to bear. The instructional

design group sets the instructional design process that will meet the needs of the business. Given

the importance of online learning, this department should reside as high as possible in the

organization so that communication to the CEO is frequent. This ensures sufficient leadershipand vision to sustain the value of online learning in the organization (O'Rourke, 1993) as well as

the role of online learning being viewed as an enterprise-wide strategy.

In this structure, individuals can have specialty areas rather than being generalists and project

managers would have responsibility for all tasks related to their project. They may still choose to

outsource some elements of the instructional design process but they have total control, baring

 budget constraints, on where and how to get the work delivered.

 Note: While not part of the E-learning group, the Technology group needs to be consulted to

create a technology plan describing how online learning will support Samosa's business needs(Schrieber, 1999).

Recommendation

Given my assessment, my recommendation is to structure Samosa as a matrix, centralized group.

Reasons include:

Shared Responsibility —Since everyone is working collaboratively together, there is a

greater sense of shared accountability to achieving the end product.

 Increased Flexibility and Speed to Market  —Rather than working vertically up an

organization to get decisions made, project team members can work directly with the

relevant department liaisons to get work done, minimizing the bureaucracy involved.

 Role Clarity —Individuals know what they are doing and buy into the strategy because

they are involved in the planning and decision-making process.

 Develop Internal Expertise —Resources within the organization will develop

competencies and expertise that will be invaluable to the organization in the future.  Enterprise-wide solution —By being located close to senior management, online

learning will be seen as organizational strategy to achieve Samosa's long-term goals and

not just a training event.

Centralized resources —The organization will benefit from concentrated efforts in

design and development which the entire organization will benefit from and reduce

duplication of efforts.

8/6/2019 ID Org Structure

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/id-org-structure 3/3

References:

  Bates, A. Planning and Managing Courses and Programs. In Bates, A. (2000)

Managing Technological Change, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lent, R. (1990) Building an Instructional Design Organization. In Johnson, K. & Foa,

L. Instructional Design: New Alternatives for Effective Education and Training. NewYork: NUCEA, 121-136.

O'Rourke, J. (1993) Roles and Competencies in Distance Education. Commonwealth

of Learning.

Schrieber, D. (1999) Instructional Design of Distance Training. In Schrieber, D. &Berge, Z. Distance Training. San Francisco:Jossey Bass, 37-65.