Section 3: Learning from the process of implementation
3.1 Difficulties managing the project
3.2 Influence of other projects and the programme as a whole
3.3 Changes made to plan and reasons
3.4 Learning from experience3.1 Difficulties managing the project
The main difficulty experienced in project management was in staffing the Technical Officer post. After some delay in making an initial appointment for Phase 2 in the autumn of 1996 (caused by waiting for the person appointed to complete a prior contract) the post became vacant again within a month. The skills required by the Project are very much in demand and the salary offered by the Project was uncompetitive with that of another post outside the university sector. Re-advertisement, recruitment and induction was, inevitably, time-consuming and ultimately we were six months in to Phase 2 before the post was fully operational. Other staff changes during the life of the Project inevitably also placed some strains on project management.
Time and financial constraints also mitigated to some extent against responding to the needs for on-going development and training within the Project team, which, in the light of rapid changes in skills requirements in the fields of networked learning and information, were significant.
3.2 Influence of other projects and the programme as a whole
NetLinkS aimed to complement other Training and Awareness activity, in particular by Netskills and Edulib. Informal feedback and, especially, feedback from NetLinkS course participants, indicated that its activities were frequently perceived in this way. NetLinkS course participants pointed out that its longer-term and developmental approach to training complemented the one-off day events offered by Netskills, and that its emphasis on exploitation of networked technologies in user education and training extended the Edulib syllabus.
3.3 Changes made to plan and reasons
Few significant changes were made to Project plans in the course of the Project. The main changes were as follows:
- The decision in Phase 2 that the on-line course should run once only (as discussed in the 2nd Annual Report).
- The decision in Phase 2 that the plan to support synchronous conferencing by means of a MOO via the Web site was unrealistic given that the user support implications were likely to be very significant. A MOO was, however, set up for the on-line course participants, who received training and on-going support from Project staff.
- The decision in Phase 2 not to produce paper-based Project documentation alongside Web-based documentation, since on reflection this appeared unnecessary duplication.
- The decision to modify the evaluation activities originally planned for both Phase 1 and 2, in part due to time and financial constraints and in part due to methodological considerations. In Phase 2 we had planned, as part of our impact evaluation, to convene a number of focus groups comprising participants in the Phase 1 focus groups and Phase 2 workshops; it was decided subsequently that this investigation would be carried out by telephone interviews on a one-to-one basis. We had also planned, towards the end of the Project, to carry out further user feedback surveys on nls-forum activity and Web-site resources; however, it was decided subsequently that duplication of the enquiry undertaken via these methods earlier in Phase 2, would be unlikely to yield further significant results.
3.4 Learning from experience
Working within institutions
Although focus group discussions and NLS co-ordinator workshops were welcomed in themselves, the strategy we adopted to target individuals in library and information services to undertake co-ordinator and change-agent roles in relation to NLS development in their institutions has met with limited success overall. It is clear that without significant commitment at the level of strategic planning and the time to take on such roles, it may well be unrealistic in many institutional contexts to expect these staff to become proactive. In the light of this experience, it may be that the strategy proposed in our initial (unfunded) submission to eLib, in which we suggested that the Project should include establishment of formal, part-time NLS development roles in institutions, would have been more successful.
Further, it is not necessarily the case that information services staff are the most suitable staff to take on co-ordination of an area of development in which there is such a diversity of stakeholder interests and perspectives, and differing institutional structures. One implication, as far as institutional and national funding policy is concerned, would seem to be that in view of the need to stimulate the development of projects that can co-ordinate networked learning and NLS development across institutions, such projects need a built-in cross-disciplinary element. Our experience has confirmed the perspective with which we started out - that NLS cannot be taken forward by librarians in isolation, either from colleagues in other support services or from academic staff, and that professional and organizational development initiatives - whether local or national - need to take this into account. Academic and learner support staff with various different specialisms (e.g. librarians, IT and educational technology staff) need to be encouraged to work together on projects which take an integrated approach to development, but which enable allocation of leadership roles to whichever services or departments are the most appropriate in local circumstances and for local purposes.
Flexibility and responsiveness
The short initial funding period inevitably created a number of pressures for the Project. Strong emphasis was placed on heavy "front-loading" in terms of focus group activity and data-gathering, and on the need to bid relatively early in the exploratory phase for further funding. The time-constraints involved may have had a limiting impact on the Project's flexibility and creativity in the longer term. In particular, it was not easy for the Project to explore and respond in developmental fashion to the need for sustained support for individual institutions in their process of cultural change and innovation. For instance, it is probable that with a more flexible remit, we would have chosen to spread focus group discussions over a longer period and run them in parallel with a more sustained programme of institutional training and awareness interventions.
[Contents] [Section 1] [Section 2] [Section 3] [Section 4] [Section 5] [Appendices]
| NetLinks Home | | | Resource Base | | | Online Course | | | Discussion Area |
Authors/Graphics - Nabeel Nasser and Sarah Ashton
last updated 12th December 1998