Institutional Approaches to Curriculum Design Process...

Institutional Approaches to Curriculum Design Process Review Workshop 9th December, The Studio, Birmingham

Workshop Programme

Welcome and Workshop Overview Gill Ferrell

The Curriculum Design Landscape Clive Alderson

JISC infoNet

Process Review Tools 1 (Some No Tech solutions) Gill Ferrell

Process Review Tools 2 (An Open Standard solution) Wilbert Kraan

JISC CETIS

Process Review Tools 3 (A High Tech solution) John Gallagher

City University

Small group discussions around approaches 1,2 and 3

Process Review Experiences Case Study 1 (using COVARM) Rachel Forsyth

Manchester

Metropolitan

University

Process Review Experiences Case Study 2 (Lean Thinking) Christine Stewart

Cardiff University

Q&A and discussions on Case Studies

Engaging Stakeholders Helen Emerson

City University

Q&A and Next Steps


Workshop Aims

The principal intention of the Process Review Workshop was to:

Assist the Curriculum Design projects in formulating their approach to

process review as part of the required baselining activity’

By the end of the event it was hoped participants would:

Have a shared understanding of the Curriculum Design ‘landscape’ in terms

of the range of institutional processes that potentially impact on curriculum

design

Be able to identify which institutional processes need to be considered as

part of the scope of their project

Be aware of a range of process review tools and techniques of varying

degrees of sophistication and be in a position to determine the most

appropriate tools to use in their project

Have considered how best to engage their project stakeholders in process

review and redesign

Have identified other projects planning similar approaches and considered

opportunities for collaboration

Be aware of the support available to the projects in carrying out this

activity


The Curriculum Design Landscape

Purpose:

1. To encourage project teams to think about the big picture of the range of institutional processes involved

2. To encourage dialogue about different terminologies and a shared understanding of the overall landscape

3. To help project teams identify which processes are of most relevance to their project

Outline:

Delegates were split into 2 groups – broadly speaking Project Managers were in the

MindMap group and business process/technical people in the Flowchart group.

Each group was given the materials (some pre-prepared and some blanks) to create

either a Mindmap or a Flowchart/Roadmap of the landscape in which they are

working and attempted to create a generic representation of the high level

processes involved.

Both groups approached this by brainstorming of all of the processes involved

before getting into the detail of sequencing.

Group 1: Flow Chart of Business Processes

This group identified the following list of processes:

Validation

Quality Assurance (Internal & External)

Timetabling

20 Credit Structure

Central Registry

Specification of Programme

Strategic Plans/Imperatives

Formal/Informal Processes

Systems Enablers

Staff Development

Resource allocation


Business Planning

Student Experience

Student Involvement

Information Management

Review/Measurement

Technology/Innovation

Research

There was a discussion over how to construct a flow chart and it was agreed that

this would be difficult to plot due to the amount of processes involved. The group

agreed that it would prove too linear so a different approach was decided upon.

The processes would be grouped under six headings outlined below:

Initiation (I)

Development (D)

Approval (A)

Implementation (IMP)

Review/Evaluation (R)

Redesign (RD)

As a result of this activity the processes were clustered into the above headings

and the detail of these are shown below:


Initiation

Strategic Planning

Employer Engagement

Timetabling

Development

Learning Design

Assessment

Summative Assessment

Timetabling

Approval

Course Approval

Validation

Quality Assurance

Timetabling

Implementation

Room Allocation/Timetabling

Admissions

Student Fees

Enrolment

Course Delivery

Summative Assessment

Review/Evaluation

Benchmarking/Performance Indicators

Review

Timetabling

Redesign

Student Feedback

Strategic Planning/Portfolio Analysis

Timetabling


Group 2: Mindmap of Business Processes

This group looked first at the drivers behind the process review they are

undertaking:

Agile processes

Employability

Fitting systems & processes together

New ways of learning

Flexibility (Student & Employer driven)

Quality of student experience

More effective use of resources

Putting the learner at the centre and plan for the learning they need to do

There was a discussion around the concept of Curriculum Design as ‘Product

Development’. Some delegates saw the processes of market research, product

design, testing and review etc as being similar to producing any other consumer

goods e.g. a washing machine. Others thought the corollary of ‘students as dirty

laundry’ was disturbing. It was agreed there is a need to focus on business

processes that reflect the design process rather than concentrating on the

‘artefacts’ of that process such as validation documents etc.


The group attempted to create a Mindmap (shown below) but felt limited by the

sequential nature of such a representation (although accepting there was a

temporal sequence to some of the activities). The left hand side represents a

fairly ‘traditional’ sequence of events. The central group of ‘Design’ elements are

a subset of this. The support elements (bottom right) ought to feed in all the way

through. The upper right group of processes were deemed a tedious distraction to

the real business in hand and led to a heated debate about the extent to which

assessment is a necessary component of all courses.


This group was more comfortable with a redraft of the diagram as a series of

concentric circles (below). The central core is the ‘engine’ but the other

processes are necessary to make it function. There was an interesting discussion

around the notion that there is a ‘silent majority’ involved in the central core

whereas in the outer circle the activities involve far fewer people who wield far

greater individual power.

In terms of scoping these projects it was noted that, as with Modern Art, the

secret is in where you place the frame.


Process Review Tools

A series of 3 presentations outlined a range of tools and techniques for modelling

and analysing business processes ranging fro ‘No Tech’ to ‘High Tech’ and there

were group discussions around each of the approaches.

Process Review Tools 1: Some No Tech Solutions, Gill Ferrell

This session showed a range of tools that can be employed without requiring start-up costs or training for users Gill emphasised the need to find fast-track ways to get at the root of major problems quickly rather than get bogged down in ‘Paralysis by Analysis’.

The techniques discussed included:

UML mapping applying Swim Lanes

RAEW Analysis

Rich Pictures

Collaboration Diagrams

All of the approaches shown can be found in the JISC infoNet Process Review infoKit:

http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/process-review

An example of a rich picture (the e-learning island) is shown below courtesy of

Prof Gilly Salmon:

http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/InfoKits/process-review


Process Review Tools 2: An Open Standard Solution: Wilbert Kraan

Wilbert Kraan of JISC CETIS took delegates through the Archimate modelling

language which can be used as a Business Analysis tool. It is a diagram language

which provides a visual vocabulary and divides the picture of an organisation into

multiple views such that a view can be found for each stakeholder. Wilbert noted

that it is a tool which can anticipate relationships and you can make one change

that will be reflected across the views. Archimate can export XML and costs

around £3k. Wilbert sees advantages over UML as the vocabulary is less detailed

which makes it clearer. It stands up as a system designed for communication.

Archimate can show a tabular output and you can link to UML diagrams if required.

Archimate is used by all Dutch Universities and various IT and Insurance

companies. There are lots of templates available on the Archimate website:

http://www.archimate.org/ A specimen of a fully worked example of Archimate is

shown below:

http://www.archimate.org/


Processes Review Tools 3: A High Tech Solution: John Gallagher

John Gallagher took the delegates through the Business Process Management

System used at City University and explained that it was a system to improve

integration between core applications. John noted that City used IBM Modeller to

build up the diagrams and said you could possibly refer to it as ‘grown up visio’.

John noted that it took a lot of effort to get the system set up but that it was

worth the effort. John described how the system integrated the processes that

require human intervention along with automated workflows. An image of City’s

systems architecture is shown below:


Process Review Experiences Case Study 1: Using COVARM – Rachel

Forsyth

Rachel took the delegates through the Supporting Responsive Curricula Project’s

use of the COVARM reference model. Rachel explained that it was used it to

construct a workflow model and can also be used to design responsiveness

measures that may be tested in different situations. Rachel informed the group

that the processes are not universally owned and that a small group of experts

take responsibility. Rachel noted that using a COVARM map makes it easier to go

out and engage with stakeholders and get validation from them. An image is

included below and this can be viewed full size on Rachel’s presentation:


Process Review Experiences Case Study 2: Lean Thinking – Christine

Stewart

Christine Stewart introduced Lean as a philosophy rather than a tool or technique.

Cardiff University is using it for strategy and continuous improvement as well as a

process because they are looking to bring about a culture change. Staff working

with this philosophy appreciate that it isn’t a cost cutting exercise but looking to

improve what you already have. Lean is noted for making processes not only

efficient but also more effective. The first principle of Lean is to identify who

your customer is and what the value is for them. It is important to ask the

customers themselves this question and not simply make assumptions. Following

this a process mapping exercise should take place and then a flow is created that

minimises waste. The notion of ‘Customer Pull’ needs to be recognised and

Christine sees that as the most difficult part of the process to grasp. The final

stage is to pursue perfection in the form of continuous improvement. Christine

suggests that organisations should spend a minimum of 5% of their time on

continuous improvement and that it is important to keep going back and reviewing

your processes Christine explained that the basic meaning of Lean is ‘Maximise the

value’. An example of one of Cardiff’s Future State Maps is included below:

Entry Criteria

Strategic Plan

Portfolio

Management

Business

Case

Is this

a runner?

Course

Team

develop full

proposal

Programme

Approval

Panel

ASQC

final

approval

Course

aligned

with strategic

plan?

6 month process maximum

Future State Map


Engaging Stakeholders: Helen Emerson

Helen discussed her experiences of engaging project stakeholders in process review

and redesign. City uses the MSP (Managing Successful Programmes) model and has

around sixty projects running at a time under five programmes. She noted the

importance of using stakeholders to help you get a full picture of all of the issues

concerned before you start. Helen emphasised the need to break people into

different stakeholder categories and also understanding the need to recognise that

stakeholders change over the life of a project. Helen also noted that having a

communications plan is critical along with aligning the correct communications

method with the right groups. Attempting to get all stakeholders to speak the

same language is always difficult although eventually new systems terminology will

become familiar to all involved (including academics). She noted the importance

of getting stakeholders to respond and not just provide them with information

Helen provided a link to a stakeholder engagement page on the Camelot Group

website:

http://www.camelotgroup.co.uk/socialreport2005/stakeholder-engagement.htm

http://www.camelotgroup.co.uk/socialreport2005/stakeholder-engagement.htm


Q&A and Next Steps

The workshop was split into 5 groups to discuss key points from the day and any

support needs and these are outlined below:

Table 1

The workshop has reconfirmed that the work they are already doing is

worthwhile and raised the issue of turning planning into action.

Change Management is needed. The workshop has highlighted the fact that

going out and asking questions about business process is actually the first

step in Change Management and how we allay fears at this stage is crucial.

Someone needs to be responsible for carrying out process change into the

implementation phase.

Table 2

The workshop was beneficial as it gave time to stop and think about the

work being carried out and look at the infoKit examples.

The need for careful management of the scoping phase when there is a lot

of interest around the institution whilst still maintaining a sufficiently open

scope.

The need to narrow the scope to what is achievable and can add the most

value once projects have communicated with stakeholders.

Table 3

The idea that it could help to gain extra support from professional

facilitators to elicit the right information from stakeholders.

It can sometimes be difficult for insiders to facilitate these kinds of

discussions.

Table 4

The potential need for support in Change Management.

The ongoing question about how to relate Institutional processes to the

changing nature of the teaching and learning process.

There was some interest in seeing the Enterprise Architecture projects and

getting an update on their activities.


Table 5

The day had expanded horizons and made them realise that there was a lot

more work to be done.

There were some serious choices over scope and a lot of thinking and

prioritising will need to take place from now on.

Facilitation workshops could be helpful.

The need to be clear over why you are using particular stakeholders and not

just knowing who they are.

Concluding Remarks and Actions

Related Workshops

John Burke notified delegates of the suite of workshops run by JISC infoNet which

are available to the projects http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/events

Process Review

Project Management

Change Management

Risk Management

The workshops are based around the popular infoKit series

http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits

Change Management Support

There was particular interest in the Change Management workshop. The model it

uses for the Adoption of Change came up frequently in the day’s discussions. The

workshop also involves the use of an online simulation tool where delegates have a

limited time to persuade a range of characters in a university setting to adopt a

new MIS system. Numbers are limited in these sessions but a workshop will be

arranged for the Project Managers.

http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/events

http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/infokits


Archimate Support

CETIS will undertake to broker relationships and a possible workshop with the JISC

Enterprise Architecture projects and will set up a group on Circle for those

interested in using the Archimate tool.

Faciliation Support

The Support and Synthesis team will offer help in facilitating process review

activities within the projects. This will be piloted with MMU who have an

immediate need. The likely outcome of this will be a ‘Train the Trainer’ approach

to support so that projects can facilitate for one another. A focus group will be

set up on the Circle site in order to work out what the needs of the projects are

and to matching projects with those who can provide facilitation.

Evaluation Workshop

The workshop was concluded with Alison Muirhead reminding delegates of the

evaluation workshop on 14 January 2009 which will also be held in Birmingham.

There is a thread on Circle where delegates can add ideas for what they want to

see in the Evaluation Workshop.

Institutional Approaches to Curriculum Design Process...

Documents

Transcript of Institutional Approaches to Curriculum Design Process...