Wayne Mackintosh

Thanks Alan,

Appreciate the feedback in helping the team calibrate strategic targets.

You raise a valid point about the "maximum" number of network partners. A key strength of the OERu is the fact that the network is a collaboration of "like-minded" institutions and we are small enough to be agile and nimble.

In terms of the possibility of allocating surplus funds for commissioning the assembly of OERu courses to fill the gaps in the emerging programme of study, we would need approximately 3 new partners to cover the cost of developing one course.  My gut feel estimate is that 70 - 75 partners would be ideal, more than that will introduce new scalability challenges. 

Agreed - the 20% target for sigining off operational guidelines on QA, credit transfer etc is a bit low. I agree, 50% is a better target.

Full course equivalent is the course unit as a component part for building a degree programme. In Canada, a full course equivalent would be a 3 credit course.  We use this nomenclature to distinguish from micro-courses.

Agree with your other points and will note these for the Strategic Planning working group.

W 

Hi Irwin

Appreciate your objective and thoughtful feedback on the OERu strategic targets. Particularly since TRU, as a founding anchor partner, completed one of the first prototype courses and you can offer authentic and realistic estimates drawing on your institutional experience. 

You offer valuable advice for a proposed process model, namely that two or three partners build a working model through "demonstrators" which will build confidence in the network to emulate the approach.  I think the strategic planning documents should provide guidance on the process side of things as well.

A few responses to your observations and questions. 

Irwin wrote "I can't speak to the current financial realities"

As an OER initiative which was bootstrapped in 2009, we are doing surprisingly well with 64% of our total operational costs covered from membership fees. We are well on track to achieve a fiscally sustainable collaboration without reliance on 3rd party funding - very few OER projects to date will be able to show a plausible pathway to fiscal sustainability by July 2015.  

Since inception, we have focused on maintaining a very low cost base which is now paying dividends. 

The deficit to date has in part been funded through 3rd party donor funding most notably the Hewlett Foundation.  We receive a small contribution (CAD15,000) from the Commonwealth of Learning for the UNESCO-COL Chair initiative.

The council of Otago Polytechnic has bank rolled the accumulated shortfall for our foundation years - a bold and couragous committment to open education. However, we anticipate that by the end of the 2014 fiscal year, the OER Foundation will have cleared the amount owing to Otago Polytechnic for the accumulated deficit.  

The current grant from the Hewlett Foundation will cover our operational deficit till 30 June 2015. This means we need to recruit 15 additional partners by this date. 

Here are the numbers. The total operational cost for the Foundation according to 2013 audited financial statements was US$214,000.  The target for breakeven is therefore 54 contributing partners (i.e. 214K divided by 4K for gold 3yr membership) assuming we maintain our low cost base and keep membership fees at the same level. 

The adminstration overhead for external grants for a small organisation with only 2 FTE staff like the OERF is considerable - research and authoring of grant proposals, report writing, external evaluation etc.  This is not to say that we will not pursue grant funding once we achieve the breakeven threshold - but we will have the advantage of focusing grant funding on strategic (rather than operational) projects. 

Recruitment questions

Irwin asks: "What is the recruitment strategy? What has it been till now? How can the partners contribute to this growth? How has the word gone out to date?"

When we established the OER Foundation, we attempted blind written letters of invitation. This strategy did not produce results. The most successful strategy is "word of mouth" where middle and senior managers in the OERu partnership speak with their counterparts at prospective partner institutions to consider joining our family. Once this "lead" is established, the OER Foundation sends a formal letter of invitation detailing the benefits and how the OERu functions. We always offer the opportunity to discuss the OERu with senior leadership at the prospective partner through a synchronous web conference. Almost all partners have used the opportunity to discuss membership during a web conference. This is usually followed by a number of communications with myself to clarrify questions with the prospective partner as required by local due dillengence procedures. 

Partners can help by establishing a "lead" for prospective partners. The OERF can then follow through with the formal invitation and membership discussions. If each partner were to establish one successful lead - we would double our recruitment targets. So this is doable!  

And finally at what point does the payoff of membership, however we define that (a good discussion question?), need to be apparent?

Drawing on our research, the three most important reasons cited for joining the network in order of priority are:

1. To be part of an international network
2. Our philanthropic mission to widen access to affordable education
3. To explore new business opportunities arising from open education models.

The fact that we are a charitible organisation is a key driver in the decision to be part of the family. 

With reference to return on investment discussions, I think a key focus should be on how partners can extract immediate but tangible benefits from the collaboration - rather than esoteric future OERu learner numbers. It will take time to build a cohort of OERu learners in the absence of a coherent programme of study. 

Your point about the OERu being a catalyst for local instittional discussions about innovation and change is insightful -- and perhaps something we should stress more in our recruitment. 

As always Irwin - thanks for your valuable inputs. 

Given the depth and detail of the questions and answers during Session 1 & 2 - I've decided to "recalibrate” the schedule of our discussions for this seminar ;-)

The OERu Strategic Planning Committee needs your advice, guidance (and support) on key performance indicators and strategic targets. We will incorporate these targets into the draft plan to be discussed at the 3^rd meeting of OERu partners. During the meeting, partners will have the opportunity to review and recalibrate the proposed targets which will be tabled at the OERu Council of CEO's meeting.

The key questions are:

• What should we measure? and

• How will we know if we have achieved our strategic goals?

The operational priorities for 2014 have been included in the development of our operational and strategic planning consultation. Effectively we are developing a 3-year strategic plan, that is from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2017. Given the rate of change in the sector, attempting to plan beyond 3-year horizon is wishful thinking in my opinion. If we were to extend the planning horizon, scenario planning would be a more appropriate methodology. (Incidentally, the OERu has a course on scenario planning.) 

You can read a more comprehensive list of example targets in the wiki. 

However, for convenience here are a list of questions. Feel free to respond to any on the list below to provide guidance to the Strategic Planning working group:

1.  What is the minimum number of contributing OERu partners you recommend as a target for 31 December 2014 (Note: + 45 partners will achieve a fiscally self-sustaining OERu network without reliance on 3rd party donor funding. We currently have 35 contributing partners.)
2. What is a reasonable target for building an OERu community source model for technology innovation and support infrastructure (i.e. OERu partners contributing development resources in kind to help support our open source innovation tech infrastructure. For example, is 3FTE equivalents spread across the network a reasonable target for the end of 2017).
3. With reference to our operational guidelines for quality assurance, credit transfer and course articulation would a target of 30% of the OERu partners signing off on the implementation of these guidlines by the end of 2017 be reasonable?
4. How many full course equivalents should we target for the end of 2017. Is 112 full course equivalents a reasonable target?
5. Parallel mode delivery where partners use OERu courses for full-fee students on campus offered in parallel with free OERu learners offers an exciting opportunity for the OERu. Is a target of 20% of OERu partners incorporating one or more OERu micro-courses for parallel mode delivery by the end of 2017 a reasonable target?
6. How should we measure the number of  "OERu learners"? What cumulative target should we aim to achieve by the end of 2017
7. Are there other KPIs or targets we should be thinking about?

These are a few questions to seed the discussion. We need your inputs, advice and guidance. 

Marc wrote:

At Thomas Edison State College, we have taken one of the courses that seemed to be partly developed and, in consultation with the original developers, we have been working on completing it so that we could develop an assessment that our students could use for credit. I worry that we will come up with a completed program of study that leads to the BGS degree but will have no actual path for students to follow to pursue that degree.

I'm very excited by TESC's efforts in taking Unisa's Critical Reasoning 2012 prototype nomination, adding value to the course structure and design and developing an assessment for your students.  This is another excellent example of the potential efficiencies of the OERu model. 

I suppose hindsight is a more accurate science, but I think there are a few valuable lessons we can draw from this inititative as we progress.

1. It would have been helpful if the course material redesign was conducted openly. My understanding is that TESC will host the course materials on Google Sites (which is fine for TESC) but restricts effective reuse by others. During the early phases it may have been possible to script an early version for more flexible reuse. Not sure what technologies you used for development. 
2. I appreciate that it would not have been feasible to develop the summative assessment openly for obvious reasons.  
3. The OER Foundation will not be able to host the resultant course materials using proprietary technology. So extra time and effort will be needed to convert the course into open formats.
4. Unisa is a Sakai campus, so it will be hard for them to integrate the course within their own learning management system for their students.
5. Unisa and the OERF are keen to have a micro format version of this course - was the course structured in way to enable delivery in micro format?  

I offer this thoughts - -not as criticisms, but reflections on how we can improve OERu operations and effectiveness. 

For the future, I think we have a very exciting opportunity to host an OERu open online version (in micro format) of this course with parallel versions being available for full-fee registered students at the respective institutions studying in parallel with the free OERu learners. I think this would be a very powerful prototype for the network to explore.

Keen to hear your thoughts on these ideas.

Marc wrote:

While some students will choose to go the whole OERu route and only take these courses that we are creating, I know from experience that most students will do only bits and pieces of such a program of study. They will do our Psychology degree or the Business degree and use the OERu courses they need, picking and choosing as it suits them. For my students, then, having actual course available for their use is far more important than having a whole program of study.

Just wanted to note that this is an excellent example of how TESC is extracting immediate tangible benefits from the OERu while contributing to the future value of the network.

Nice one! I hope partners will follow your lead.