E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT OVERVIEW

Assignment 2: E-Learning Readiness Audit Overview

Chris Chapman, Britt Hanson, Chris Hurst & Christy-Lynn Smith
University of British Columbia

ETEC 520 66A Planning & Managing Learning Technologies in Higher Education
Submitted to Mark Bullen
June 28, 2015
Word Count: 1943

E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT OVERVIEW

Rationale & Explanation for Tool Creation

While e-learning is increasingly seen as a way to improve teaching and learning in higher education,
integrating e-learning is an expensive undertaking and entails large costs and structural changes to an
organization. Before an institution decides to implement e-learning into its learning ecosystem, careful
analysis is needed to determine if the benefits to the organization outweigh the costs, and if the institution is
ready for e-learning not only on a technological basis, but on an administrative, cultural, financial,
organizational, and pedagogical basis. Since the costs and risks to an organization attempting to implement
e-learning are great, it is necessary for the institution to assess its readiness for e-learning in terms of its
strategic planning, funding, technological infrastructure, organizational culture and structure, and faculty
and learner readiness (Bullen, 2015b) before proceeding with any planned e-learning initiative.
As a group, we have chosen to use a qualitative questionnaire with structured and unstructured items
as an assessment tool for the institution's e-learning readiness (see Appendix A: E-Learning Readiness
Tool). By using this tool we will be able to quickly assess the institution's e-learning readiness and evaluate
some of the challenges facing the organization.
The audit tool has been adapted from the criteria set forth by Bullen (2015b), which is based on the
works of Bates & Sangr (2011). These criteria were chosen because the initial criteria by Bates & Sangr
were drawn from existing literature and case studies of eleven universities (information was collected from
over 30 universities in North America, Europe and Australia) over a period of twelve years until 2010 (Bates
& Sangr, 2011, p. 53); however, since the criteria by Bates & Sangr were intended to measure the success
of e-learning implementation, they were modified by Bullen to assess the institutions readiness for elearning. These criteria have been divided into six categories: planning, costs & funding, infrastructure,
organizational culture, organizational structure, and faculty and learner readiness, but have been adapted so
that they can be used to assess the e-learning readiness of any organization solely based on publicly
available information. Each of these categories, which have been rearranged from the original work to
reflect their relative importance, consists of questions that can be used to determine the level of readiness of
the organization.

E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT OVERVIEW

Description & Explanation of e-Learning Readiness Audit Tool

As stated previously, the e-learning readiness audit tool consists of the following six categories:
Planning - Before an institution decides to outlay significant costs on e-learning, it is essential that it not
only has a clear, defensible rationale for doing so, but is also able to clearly define what its e-learning needs
are as there is no universal definition of what e-learning is. The institution needs to understand what form(s)
of e-learning it plans to implement, what the potential benefits are to integrating e-learning in order to
determine if they outweigh the costs, and understand where the organization currently sits on the e-learning
continuum described by Bullen (2015a) to determine any gaps between its current state and any planned
implementation.
Costs & Funding - In regards to the costs and funding of e-learning, it is essential that the organization is
able to determine if there is special or relocatable funding to set up the e-learning program and whether the
institution can fund the administrative and technological costs of e-learning on an ongoing, sustainable basis
(Bates & Sangr, 2011). Without these sources of funding, limited resources could unintentionally be
diverted from areas that would be more beneficial to both learners and the organization such as hiring
additional staff or faculty.
Infrastructure - Although it is not a strong discriminator between large institutions in terms of their elearning readiness (Bates & Sangr, 2011), it is necessary for the institution to have the required
infrastructure for staff, students and faculty to access IT services; without a strong IT infrastructure in place,
the institution will need to spend a significantly greater sum of money in developing these resources to meet
the expected volume of traffic. In addition, if administrative services have already been centralized and
digitized, it can eliminate redundancies, reduce overhead and maximize e-learning economies of scale.
Furthermore, as the use of technology increases along the e-learning continuum, the need for responsive
technical support increases for both staff and learners, so this was added to the e-learning readiness audit
tool.
Organizational Culture - One of the largest impediments to the acceptance of e-learning at the institutional
level is the organizational culture clash that inevitably exists between e-learning support units, which
historically adopt a managerial culture, and the faculties, which tend to possess a collegial culture (Bergquist

E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT OVERVIEW

& Pawlak, 2008; Bullen, 2006). Since the criteria to determine if an organization has a culture conducive to
e-learning requires considerable understanding of the organizational culture and is impossible to determine
from publicly available information, the focus of the readiness tool has changed to determine if the
institution possesses the necessary champions to lead and influence other faculty members as well as the
organizational structure to overcome possible issues regarding its culture.
Organizational Structure - Since, as previously stated, it is difficult to determine if the organization has a
culture conducive to e-learning without inside knowledge of the workings of the faculty, it is important that
the institution takes measures to ensure that e-learning adoption will proceed as smoothly as possible. Since
two of the main obstacles in regards to organizational culture clash are managing faculty members and
academic freedom (Bullen, 2006), it is necessary to ensure that the institution has an organizational structure
that is able to alleviate any possible concerns regarding these two issues. By ensuring that the institution has
a governance structure that includes all three levels of governance: enterprise, departmental, and institutional
(Davis, Little & Stewart, 2008), includes senior faculty members in the decision-making process, and has a
clear policy regarding intellectual property rights, it decreases (but not eliminates) the likelihood that an elearning initiative will fail due to organizational culture issues.
Additionally, since successful e-learning requires continuous attention to deal with any technological
issues that may arise (Bates & Sangr, 2011) and since the benefits of e-learning need to be offset the
resources used to maintain it on a continuing basis, the organization needs to have a policy in place to
determine its impact and effectiveness.
Faculty and Learner Readiness - As higher education institutions enhance their e-learning capability it is
necessary to assess current practices in which technology is implemented and supported within the
institution. Faculty and teachers are significantly challenged implementing resources and tools which require
a skill set and knowledge they have little or no experience with and therefore to be used effectively, teachers
are required to be properly trained (Bates & Sangr, 2011). Suitable support structures must be in place for
students to provide a necessary service to ensure equal accessibility to material and resources for learning.
Since it is difficult to identify the e-learning readiness of staff, faculty and learners without first-hand
research, the e-learning readiness audit tool has changed the original criteria put forth by Bullen (2015b) to

E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT OVERVIEW

examine what support and training is already provided by the institution, whether there is an existing plan or
policy to train faculty on the use of learning technologies, and whether there is an e-learning support
network for students. Even if faculty, staff and learners are not currently ready for e-learning, with these
support structures in place, the adoption of learning technologies should proceed much more efficiently.

Assessment of the institutions e-learning readiness

A brief assessment of The University of Calgary was conducted based on the e-learning readiness
tool. The information used to assess the University of Calgarys e-learning readiness is from the Report of
the Learning Technologies Task Force: Strategic Framework for Learning Technologies, June 2014
(University of Calgary, 2014).
The institution that we have chosen for e-learning assessment is the University of Calgary, situated in
Calgary, Alberta. This university is a large, research-based university with more than 31 000 students in
over 200 programs for study in undergraduate to postgraduate studies (University of Calgary, 2015). Using
the E-learning readiness tool to assess the University of Calgarys Strategic Framework for Learning
Technologies (2014), we discovered that there is information to support the areas of organizational structure,
infrastructure, faculty and learner readiness, and organizational culture. The areas that lacked adequate
information or required further examination are costs and funding and planning.
Planning - In the planning section, it is evident that the university of Calgary has a clear e-learning strategic
plan to improve teaching and learning and implies the benefits of e-learning; however, it does not fully
elaborate this and doesnt clearly state specific outcomes. In the area of identifying the purposes and plan of
e-learning in accordance to the e-learning continuum of face-to-face teaching (Bullen, 2015a), ICT in
support of face-to-face teaching, blended learning, and fully online learning, the framework lacks details.
The U of Cs plan for using e-learning in the future is ambiguous.
Costs and Funding - It was inconclusive from the information provided in the framework regarding costs
and funding and the sustainability of e-learning. Though there was financial data to examine and it

E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT OVERVIEW

explained where some of the funding would be reallocated, it was unclear where the additional funding to
make up the $2 million necessary to meet the institutions goals would come from.
Infrastructure - The University of Calgary has a comprehensive IT infrastructure in place allowing staff,
students, and faculty to access technologies available as evidenced by its administrative network as well as
the presence of a centralized e-learning support unit (The Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning) and its
use of a learning management system (Desire2Learn). Many points in the strategic plan support that
assistance is addressed in the plan to be provided for students, faculty and staff, however evidence of current
practices are less clear.
Organizational Culture - Within the subheading of organization culture there is a task force that involves
senior decision-makers within the university as well as representation from various faculties who recognize
and influence the importance of e-learning.
Organizational Structure - The institution is using a General Faculties Council Committee System. From
the information provided in the framework, governance appears to be a priority in this plan. In addition,
there is an articulate policy in place for intellectual property rights (elearn.ucalgary.ca). Monitoring, surveys
and other tools are provided to assist in on-going assessment of e-learning.
Faculty and Learner Readiness - In the areas of faculty and learner readiness, support and training systems
are in place for students and faculty. There is a strategic plan in place for learning technologies training,
which is shown in its prioritizing of leadership, through providing mentoring, coaching and training to
students, faculty and staff; its aim to recognize and reward contributions by faculty and staff in this area, and
by its strategy to create, maintain and distribute learning resources amongst faculty and staff.

Conclusion
Applying the adapted e-learning readiness audit tool to the University of Calgarys strategic
framework for learning, it can be seen that the universitys framework possesses both strengths and
weaknesses. In terms of organizational culture and structure, from publicly available information it appears
that the university has strong structural components that will allow e-learning to be more easily integrated.
In addition, the university is ready for learning in terms of faculty and learner readiness and appears to have

E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT OVERVIEW

the strong IT infrastructure necessary for e-learning. On the other hand, the university needs to have a
clearer plan in place for how it defines e-learning, how its plan for e-learning will benefit actual learning,
and how it will absorb the financial cost of implementing its framework.

E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT OVERVIEW

References
Bates, A.W. & Sangr, A. (2011). Managing technology in higher education: Strategies for transforming
teaching & learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bergquist, W.H., & Pawlak, K. (2008). Engaging the six cultures of the academy: Revised and expanded
edition of the four cultures of the academy. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bullen, M. (2006). When worlds collide: Project management and the collegial culture. Plan to learn: Case
studies in elearning project management, 169-171.
Bullen, M. (2015a). What is e-learning. [Lecture notes]. Retrieved from
http://blogs.ubc.ca/etec5202015/unit-1/unit-2-what-is-e-learning/.
Bullen, M. (2015b). E-learning readiness. [Lecture notes]. Retrieved from
http://blogs.ubc.ca/etec5202015/unit-2/introduction/
Davis, A., Little, P., & Stewart, B. (2004). Developing an infrastructure for online learning. Theory and
practice of online learning, 97-114.
University of Calgary. (2014). Strategic framework for learning technologies: Report of learning
technologies task force June 2014. [PDF document]. Retrieved from
http://www.ucalgary.ca/provost/files/provost/final_lttf_report_gfc_june_2014.pdf
University of Calgary. (2015). About the university of calgary. Retrieved from
http://www.ucalgary.ca/about/

E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT OVERVIEW

APPENDIX A: E-Learning Readiness Tool

Planning
a. The institution has an e-learning strategy or a clear, strategic rationale for the use of e-learning (Bullen,
2015).
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
b. The institution outlines the benefits of implementing e-learning (Bullen, 2015).
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
c. Using the e-learning continuum image (Bullen, 2015) below, the purposes of e-learning technology are
identified.

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

d. Based on the e-learning continuum image (Bullen, 2015) above, the institution can identify the plan it
has for e-learning.
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
Costs & Funding
a. The institution provides adequate financial support for e-learning (Bullen, 2015).
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
b. The e-learning program will be sustainable and cover its ongoing costs.
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Agree

Strongly
Disagree

Infrastructure
a. The institution has an advanced, comprehensive IT infrastructure that enables all staff, students, and
faculty to access computers, networks, software, and services as required (Bullen, 2015).
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
b. The institutional administrative systems have been digitized and faculty, staff, and students have access
to those services via the Internet (Bullen, 2015).
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree

E-LEARNING READINESS AUDIT OVERVIEW

10

c. Technological assistance and training is readily available for staff, faculty, and students to access.
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
Organizational Culture
a. There are e-learning champions or members within the institution with power and influence who
recognize the importance of e-learning (Bullen, 2015).
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
Organizational structure
a. There is a clear governance structure that includes all three levels of governance, enterprise,
departmental, and individual (Davis & Little, 2008).
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
b. The academic advisory committee has faculty representation.
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Agree

Strongly
Disagree

c. The university has a clear plan outlining its policy on intellectual property rights.
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
d. The university has a policy to assess and measure the impact and effectiveness of its e-learning initiative.
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Faculty and Learner readiness
a. Faculty support and training for e-learning is comprehensive (Bullen, 2015).
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
b. There is an existing plan or policy to train faculty on the use of learning technologies.
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Disagree
c. E-learning supports for students exist.
Strongly
Agree
Neutral
Agree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree